John-Mark Gurney wrote this message on Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 09:11 -0700:
> George Neville-Neil wrote this message on Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:35 -0400:
> > That's fine so long as its removed in HEAD now, and then the warning can
> > go into 10 aka 10.3.
>
> As I said, setkey doesn't support it.. a
George Neville-Neil wrote this message on Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:35 -0400:
> That's fine so long as its removed in HEAD now, and then the warning can
> go into 10 aka 10.3.
As I said, setkey doesn't support it.. and I looked at the ports for
racoon2 and strongswan (has it in their library, but,
That's fine so long as its removed in HEAD now, and then the warning can
go into 10 aka 10.3.
Best,
George
On 28 Jul 2015, at 13:25, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Hi,
I'd put together a deprecation plan, which starts with the kernel
warning that this stuff is being removed, MFC that to stable/10 and
Hi,
I'd put together a deprecation plan, which starts with the kernel
warning that this stuff is being removed, MFC that to stable/10 and
stable/9 so people aren't surprised when they upgrade, and then have
it removed in 11.
-adrian
On 28 July 2015 at 04:34, Daniel Plominski wrote:
> instead
Daniel Plominski wrote this message on Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 13:34 +0200:
> instead of code to remove it is a better idea manuals to revise, people
> depend on old recommendations like
> https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/ipsec.html
Thanks, I have at least removed the inclusion of des from the ci
instead of code to remove it is a better idea manuals to revise, people
depend on old recommendations like
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/ipsec.html
would be better:
https://blog.plitc.eu/2014/freebsd-10-ipv4-vpn-relay-ipsec-entryopenvpn-middleopenvpn-exit-node-mit-jails/
or the racoon exam
Jim Thompson wrote this message on Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 23:18 -0500:
> > On Jul 27, 2015, at 10:41 PM, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> >
> > Jim Thompson wrote this message on Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 20:24 -0500:
> >>> On Jul 27, 2015, at 7:57 PM, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I would like to remo
> On Jul 27, 2015, at 10:41 PM, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
>
> Jim Thompson wrote this message on Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 20:24 -0500:
>>> On Jul 27, 2015, at 7:57 PM, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
>>>
>>> I would like to remove it from HEAD immediately as I don't see a use
>>> for it. Some time ago I pr
Jim Thompson wrote this message on Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 20:24 -0500:
> > On Jul 27, 2015, at 7:57 PM, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> >
> > I would like to remove it from HEAD immediately as I don't see a use
> > for it. Some time ago I proposed removing Skipjack from the OCF in 12, but
> > personall
> On Jul 27, 2015, at 7:57 PM, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
>
> I would like to remove it from HEAD immediately as I don't see a use
> for it. Some time ago I proposed removing Skipjack from the OCF in 12, but
> personally, now that I think about how long 12 is, we deprecate these sooner
> rather
Upon doing some investigation, I have found that the SKIPJACK IPsec
encryption mode was never standardized. It was a draft[1] back in
1999, but never made into an offical RFC, and IANA nor IETF never
assigned an offical number for the mode.
Skipjack is also a very weak cipher[2]. The largest key
11 matches
Mail list logo
