linux-kernel - Re: Why the auxiliary cipher in gss_krb5

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <122997.1607097713@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 04 Dec 2020 16:01:53 +0000
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
        CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Why the auxiliary cipher in gss_krb5_crypto.c?

Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org> wrote:

> > Reading up on CTS, I'm guessing the reason it's like this is that CTS is the
> > same as the non-CTS, except for the last two blocks, but the non-CTS one is
> > more efficient.
> 
> CTS is cipher-text stealing, isn't it?  I think it was Kevin Coffman
> that did that, and I don't remember the history.  I thought it was
> required by some spec or peer implementation (maybe Windows?) but I
> really don't remember.  It may predate git.  I'll dig around and see
> what I can find.

rfc3961 and rfc3962 specify CTS-CBC with AES.

David