> > On 27.02.2017, at 16:10, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> A patch to get away from SHA1 in dhcpd
> >>>
> >>
> >> HMAC-SHA1 is not affected by the published collision, but I'm not
> >> against switching the sync protocol to SHA2. Performance also doesn't
> >> matter that much here as the t
> On 27.02.2017, at 16:10, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>
>>>
>>> A patch to get away from SHA1 in dhcpd
>>>
>>
>> HMAC-SHA1 is not affected by the published collision, but I'm not
>> against switching the sync protocol to SHA2. Performance also doesn't
>> matter that much here as the typical sync rate i
> > A patch to get away from SHA1 in dhcpd
> >
>
> HMAC-SHA1 is not affected by the published collision, but I'm not
> against switching the sync protocol to SHA2. Performance also doesn't
> matter that much here as the typical sync rate is fairly small.
>
> Once done, it should also be done fo
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 04:15:07PM +0100, Denis Fondras wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A patch to get away from SHA1 in dhcpd
>
HMAC-SHA1 is not affected by the published collision, but I'm not
against switching the sync protocol to SHA2. Performance also doesn't
matter that much here as the typical sync rat
> It does also need some notice to users that old+new aren't compatible.
> But as far as I'm aware SHA1 and even MD5 are still considered suitable
> for HMAC aren't they?
>
You are right Stuart.
On 2017-02-25, Denis Fondras wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A patch to get away from SHA1 in dhcpd
It does also need some notice to users that old+new aren't compatible.
But as far as I'm aware SHA1 and even MD5 are still considered suitable
for HMAC aren't they?
Hi,
A patch to get away from SHA1 in dhcpd
Index: sync.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/dhcpd/sync.c,v
retrieving revision 1.23
diff -u -p -r1.23 sync.c
--- sync.c 13 Feb 2017 23:04:05 - 1.23
+++ sync.c 25 Feb 20
7 matches
Mail list logo
