Re: [Emu] Comments on draft-hartman-emu-mutual-crypto-bind

2012-07-02 Thread Sam Hartman
> "Jim" == Jim Schaad writes: Jim> Sam et al, Jim> 1. In section 1 after the Classic Tunnel Attack figure, I believe there are Jim> three methods listed as possible mitigation strategies, however I don't Jim> understand how the second one - a sufficiently strong inner method

Re: [Emu] Comments on draft-hartman-emu-mutual-crypto-bind

2012-03-25 Thread Sam Hartman
> "Jim" == Jim Schaad writes: Jim> 3. 3.2.3 or 3.2.2 - If you had a non EAP method, and it Jim> derived a key (just like a good EAP method). Is there any Jim> reason why you could not do the cryptographic binding? Other Jim> than it is not currently defined in one of the c

[Emu] Comments on draft-hartman-emu-mutual-crypto-bind

2012-03-20 Thread Jim Schaad
Sam et al, 1. In section 1 after the Classic Tunnel Attack figure, I believe there are three methods listed as possible mitigation strategies, however I don't understand how the second one - a sufficiently strong inner method - could possibly be a mitigation by itself. The three I see are 1) Poli