Re: #612: 9.2.2 requirements

On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 20:50:13 +0100, Martin J. Dürst  
<duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:

> On 2014/11/02 01:53, Martin Nilsson wrote:
>
>> I think it can be even easier than that. Given the assumption that no  
>> new suites
>> will be created with worse security properties than the banned ones the
>> ciphersuite can be any of these three
>>
>> - Known and secure
>> - Known and insecure
>> - Unknown and secure
>
> Not necessarily true. Of course nobody wants to create new suites with  
> worse properties, but just imagine a new suite that looks very good and  
> gets introduced, but then a year or two down the line, a crucial flaw is  
> found. For a piece of software that hasn't been updated during that  
> time, the cypher is unknown but insecure.
>

But a flaw can be found in any of the cipher suites, so I don't see this  
as directly related.

/Martin Nilsson

-- 
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Received on Sunday, 2 November 2014 17:29:45 UTC