RE: [Fwd: HMAC-MD5: to be or not to be?]

> From: Dan Simon <dansimon@microsoft.com>
>
> (I'll make another pitch
> here for not explicitly specifying the hash function or functions used
> in the "handshake hash"; if this news about MD5 had come out a year
> later, then the body of the spec itself would have had to be revised,
> instead of just the list of valid hash functions).

Absolutely.  Explicitly specifying the handshake hash functions in SSL
is a weakness of the protocol, not a feature.

Regarding the meeting in the Bay Area at the end of the month, someone
from Atalla will certainly be there.  (Probably myself and Dave
Maracchini.)

Susan Langford
Sr. Cryptographic Analyst, Atalla
langford_susan@tandem.com