<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]

To: Phil Scarratt <fil,AT,draxsen,DOT,com>
Subject: Re: What do you guys think about this?
From: Damion Wilson <dwilson,AT,ibl,DOT,bm>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:03:35 -0300
Cc: cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de
In-reply-to: <3F6FEC4D.7020701@draxsen.com>
References: <3F6F8C81.2080202@hasely.com> <3F6FEC4D.7020701@draxsen.com>

I believe so. The lack of an integrity checking procedure that depends on 
sequence numbers (to ensure no insertions or deletions have occurred) is a 
result of statelessness. If UDP packets get lost (which they do), there is no 
good way of deciding that the stream hasn't been compromised instead of just 
become unreliable.

DKW

On Tuesday 23 September 2003 03:46 am, Phil Scarratt wrote:
> Has Dan Kaminsky (posted to the Slashdot thread as Effugas) got it
> right??? Is the problem (if any) because we want a stateless protocol???
>
> Fil
>
> Groups wrote:
> > I've been using CIPE for over a year now, and my boss just forwarded
> > this link, http://www.mit.edu:8008/bloom-picayune/crypto/14238, to a
> > posting about the security of CIPE.  Does anyone have any arguments that
> > may help me out?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Message sent by the cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de mailing list.
> > Unsubscribe: mail majordomo,AT,inka,DOT,de, "unsubscribe cipe-l" in body
> > Other commands available with "help" in body to the same address.
> > CIPE info and list archive:
> > <URL:http://sites.inka.de/~bigred/devel/cipe.html>


<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]