![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 08:36:23PM -0700, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@ wrote: > In article <Xine.LNX.4.44.0408052245380.20516-100000@dhcp83-76.boston.redhat.com> (at Thu, 5 Aug 2004 22:47:12 -0400 (EDT)), James Morris <jmorris@redhat.com> says: > > > > Would you be against a patch to cryptoapi to have access to a > > > non-scatter-list set of calls? > : > > level. Can you demonstrate a compelling need for raw access to the > > algorithms via the API? > > I would use them for > - Privacy Extensions (RFC3041) support > - upcoming TCP MD5 signature (RFC2385) support > since I don't see the advantage(s) of sg for allocated memories there. Thank you for your input. But please read this note in the RFC2385: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2385.html "Section 4.4: MD5 as a Hashing Algorithm" It talks about MD5 as an insecure algorithm and how changing it would require a new RFC, which make me sad. If you could add support for SHA-1 as well that would be nifty. James, Back to your question: I want to replace the legacy MD5 and the incorrectly implemented SHA-1 implementations from driver/char/random.c Thanks, cheers! JLC - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||