Subject: Re: [RPSEC] about the charter and work items

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:12:18 -0400 (EDT)

>I agree the Manral draft appears relevant, however, I'm not sure your
>characterization of it's thrust is accurate.

Yes, sorry, I worked off memory.  Looking at it again, it seems to be
considering replay damages, rather than damage from hash brokenness.

--Sandy

_______________________________________________
RPSEC mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rpsec

---

From: "Vishwas Manral" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:38:59 +0530

Hi Sandy/ Tony,

The draft does talk about the known problems with MD5 and SHA-1
collision attacks. We do dis-reccomend the use of the algorithms
however. We have drafts for OSPF/ IS-IS as well as RIP which talk
about adding support for additional algorithms besides just MD5.

As discussed earlier on the list, it may be hard to make a malicious
packet with the same hash value(as fields like checksum/ version etc
will have to be correct for the packet not to be discarded). However
if such a thing is possible, most of the attacks possible, without the
hashing would be possible now.

I will add in detail the above description to the draft.

Thanks,
Vishwas