Hi Achim,
On 16/11/2016 10:21, "TLS on behalf of Kraus Achim (INST/ESY1)"
wrote:
>I'm still wondering, why the "clashing" calculations (section 4) are only
>based on the number of clients and not also on the length of the hash
>chain.
I guess you are right. The left column should say "sessions
rag von Fossati, Thomas (Nokia -
GB)
Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. November 2016 08:08
An: Martin Thomson ; Eric Rescorla
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig ; tls@ietf.org
Betreff: Re: [TLS] [ALU] Re: extending the un-authenticated DTLS header
On 15/11/2016 03:51, "TLS on behalf of Martin Thomson"
wrote
Okay, so you are saying that every packet has the same number?
On 15 Nov 2016 6:30 PM, "Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB)" <
thomas.foss...@nokia.com> wrote:
> On 15/11/2016 09:20, "TLS on behalf of Martin Thomson"
> wrote:
> >This means that you can guarantee privacy, but it forces
> >the server to
On 15/11/2016 09:20, "TLS on behalf of Martin Thomson"
wrote:
>This means that you can guarantee privacy, but it forces
>the server to do an exhaustive search of all of its active connections
>(that is, O(N)) when it gets a 5-tuple mismatch.
I don't think I follow. You'd use CID as primary key t
On 15/11/2016 03:51, "TLS on behalf of Martin Thomson"
wrote:
>On 15 November 2016 at 10:16, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>> I'd be interested in an analysis of the potential privacy
>>> impacts of this. Isn't this more or less the same as doing
>>> SPUD-for-DTLS? (If not, sorry for dragging in controve
