RE: P1619 - non-removable

2006-03-27 Thread Doug Whiting
least one alternative encryption mode for non-removable > storage, or does not clearly state, that non-removable > storage would be covered with another standard, we cannot support it. > > Laszlo > > > > Original Message > > Subject: RE: P1619 -

RE: P1619 - non-removable

2006-03-27 Thread Doug Whiting
ackgrounds document, maybe together > with the threat models, attack scenarios. > > Laszlo > > > Original Message > > Subject: RE: P1619 - non-removable > > From: "Doug Whiting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Mon, March 27, 2006 3:1

RE: P1619 - non-removable

2006-03-27 Thread Doug Whiting
enough, we can put it in a separate document, but > I thought it could remain a chapter in the Backgrounds document. > > Laszlo > > > Original Message > > Subject: RE: P1619 - non-removable > > From: "Doug Whiting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date

RE: IEEE 1619.1 draft 4 (tape) Comments and feedback

2006-03-08 Thread Doug Whiting
ECTED]Sent: Wed 3/8/2006 5:00 PMTo: Doug Whiting; james hughesCc: Garry McCracken; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: IEEE 1619.1 draft 4 (tape) Comments and feedback Thanks Doug!I can see part of my confusion now.  I was looking at the CCM proposalthat you had written with Russ Housley and Niel

RE: IEEE 1619.1 draft 4 (tape) Comments and feedback

2006-03-08 Thread Doug Whiting
application, L=3 is probably about right. Does this help? > -Original Message- > From: Matt Ball [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 3:48 PM > To: james hughes > Cc: Garry McCracken; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Doug Whiting > Subject: RE: IEEE 1619.

RE: an updated draft for p1619.1

2005-12-08 Thread Doug Whiting
Title: RE: an updated draft for p1619.1 But of course this is rather difficult to do because most drives have compression hardware built in, and, to my knowledge, that compression layer has never been "transparent" in this same way. So, while this idea is a nice one, is it truly realistic?

RE: HP Comments on GCM Mode for Tape encryption

2005-08-10 Thread Doug Whiting
The 802.11i MAC tag (CCMP) is 64 bits. I see no allowance for other options: "CCM is defined in IETF RFC 3610. CCM is a generic mode that can be used with any block-oriented encryption algorithm. CCM has two parameters (M and L), and CCMP uses the following values for the CCM parameters: - M = 8

RE: HP Comments on GCM Mode for Tape encryption

2005-08-10 Thread Doug Whiting
t optional. In that case, EVERY cryptographer in the world (including Shai, David McGrew, and myself :) will opine to the press that this is a mistake and a hole. We've seen this kind of thing cause real problems too many times in the past to ignore those lessons. Doug Whiting Hifn > ---