Subject: Re: [Cfrg] An attack violating the UMAC security claims

From: Ted Krovetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 08:20:12 -0700

> Try starting from my 18 January 2005 note.

I had a look at the Jan 18 exchange. It looks to me that then, as  
now, there was a difference of *opinions*.

We felt that short tags have their place, that a proof of UHASH was  
sufficient to claim UMAC proven, and that having a proviso that AES  
was secure was sufficient to say UMAC forging probability was no more  
than 2^-30i. Bernstein disagreed.

Both points of view were and are reasonable and defensible. We, the  
UMAC authors, have adapted the presentation of our claims in response  
to a wider audience asking us to do so.

What is neither reasonable nor defensible is a belief that abuse is a  
legitimate means of coercion in a civilized society.

As for policy, I suggest that beginning with future incidents, any  
post that the moderators feel is personally abusive should result in  
a private e-mail to the sender stating so. Then, if a public apology  
is not forthcoming, the sender should be suspended for six months.  
Repeated abusers should be suspended for longer periods of time (or  
permanently).

-Ted Krovetz

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