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  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]
Date:	Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:07:21 +0900 (JST)
From:	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] TCP: Add TCP-AO support

In article <> (at Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:22:35 -0700), "Adam Langley" <> says:

> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 6:28 PM, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明
> <> wrote:
> > Again, is it okay to add/del one key per each operation?
> Yes, I believe so. (At least I can't think of a situation where it isn't)
> > If yes, we do not need to change current API too much.
> I think, if we're only supporting two keys, the API in the patch (save
> making the flags wider etc) is good.
> If the concenous is that we need to support > 2 keys per address, then
> I'll have a think.

If we can do incremental approach, even if we suppor upto 2 keys,
I'd suggest something like this:

struct tcp_auth {
       struct sockaddr_storage tcpa_addr;
       __u8                    tcpa_keyid
       __u8                    tcpa_algo;
       __u16                   tcpa_keylen;
       __u32		       tcpa_flags;
       __u8		       tcpa_key[TCP_AUTHOPT_MAXKEYLEN];

(I think you can get my idea, anyway.)

And it would be better to have another option such as TCP_AUTHOPT or such
for property for all keys.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists