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

To: <cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de>
Subject: Re: About Peter Gutmann's critique of CIPE
From: Allan Latham <alatham,AT,flexsys-group,DOT,com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:13:38 +0200
In-reply-to: <twig.1064545056.17652@yonan.net>
References: <E1A2bsS-00033q-00@bigred.inka.de> <twig.1064545056.17652@yonan.net>

On Friday 26 September 2003 04:57, James Yonan wrote:

SNIP

> One observation I would make is that CIPE is a relatively old project,
> having been started at a time when IPSec was impractical, tun/tap drivers
> did not exist, and high-quality crypto libraries were either nonexistent or
> in a nascent state of development.

Wisdom comes with age and so does reliable software. Striving for the newest 
is seldom compatible with safety in this arena.

> Today, many of the functions that CIPE is trying to do, both at the crypto
> level and at the networking level, can be done quite well by external,
> independently developed libraries and drivers.  IMHO, to avail itself of
> these resources would make CIPE a stronger, more lightweight solution.

CIPE is self contained as far as crypto is concerned. It is small enough to 
be 
well understood and has been stable for years. It will not fail just because 
the latest libssl contains a bug.

In many cases it makes good sense to offload functionality to standard 
libraries - this is not such a case. CIPE contains a correct implementation 
of all the crypto functionality it needs. Absolutely nothing is gained by 
delegating this to a library function.

>
> James Yonan
> OpenVPN Developer

I wish you well with your project. If you achieve the proven reliability of 
CIPE it will be a great success. However I believe that when we leave CIPE it 
will be for a standard product like IPsec - however that has to wait until we 
have sufficient faith in that product.

Best regards

Allan


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