Jeffrey Walton writes:
>Is anyone aware of of application layer encryption protocols with session
>management tuned for use on cellular networks?
>
>[...]
>From that description your problem isn't at the encryption-protocol level at
all, you need a reliable transport mechanism for cellular netwo
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> The problem in practice is TCP/IP and later generation cellular
> networks (especially 4G and the "All IP" implementations). All appears
> OK when moving among cells if the IP address is forwarded and the
> device remains connected. All hell
Hi All,
Is anyone aware of of application layer encryption protocols with
session management tuned for use on cellular networks? I need FIPS
compliant ciphers, but that should be an implementation detail (I
mention it because of setup and cipher text expansions).
I have an application that perfor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 31, 2012, at 1:58 PM, travis+ml-rbcryptogra...@subspacefield.org wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> Thinking out loud;
>
> One reason why PBKDF2 requires the original password is so that you don't
> repeatedly
> hash the same thing
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Thierry Moreau
wrote:
> Solar Designer wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 04:06:58PM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>>
>>> The OpenSSL cleanse() function will likely fail on BIOs created from
>>> storage and memory mapped files when used on SSDs due to write
>>> l
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Andy Isaacson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 06:29:47PM +, John Case wrote:
>> So, given what is in the stanford report and then reading this rant
>> about openssl, I am wondering just how bad openssl is ? I've never
>> had to implement it or code with it, s
Thinking out loud;
One reason why PBKDF2 requires the original password is so that you don't
repeatedly
hash the same thing, and end up a "short cycle", where e.g. hash(x) = x. At
that
point, repeated iterations don't do anything.
I just realized, you don't necessarily need to put the original
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:47 PM, danimoth wrote:
> On 27/10/12 at 06:47pm, Patrick Pelletier wrote:
> [cut]
>> Besides the poor documentation, the other thing about OpenSSL is
>> that it is definitely not "batteries included." Now, I'm not
> [cut]
>
> I think they use a "batteries included" appro
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Patrick Mylund Nielsen
wrote:
> Hopefully somebody's doing some kind of integrity check pre-release no
> matter where it's hosted... :)
>
> In either case, happy to help if it is manhours you need, and I'm sure
> others on this list are as well.
I think what we ne
