Ana Kukec escribió: > Hi all, > > Just to summarize the possible options about encoding hash algorithm: > right thanks
> a) Use the same hash algorithm as in CGA for all hashes. There is no > bidding down attack in that case. Different algorithms then CGA > algorithm for other hashes does not increase security. > right actually, as someone suggested in the meeting, it is also possible to encode the hash function in the last 3 bits of the address, irrespectivly the address is a CGA or not > b) Use the Hash Algorithm option to define different (or the same?) > algorithm for all hashes. It is vulnerable to the bidding down attack, > but provides flexibility, since in the future, SeND might be used > without CGAs. > > well, the scope of bidding down attacks in this case could be limited by admin configuration. I mean, if it is determined that a given hash function is insecure, then hosts simply don't accept the hash algorithm any more and no bidding down attack is possible The problem is when two hash algorithms with different level of security must be accepted simultaneously, so during that period, the attack will be possible regards, marcelo > Any opinions? :-) > > Ana > _______________________________________________ > CGA-EXT mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext > > _______________________________________________ CGA-EXT mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext
