[16521] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: Comments on the checksum vulnerabilities
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg Hudson)
Fri Dec 3 13:40:37 2010
From: Greg Hudson <ghudson@mit.edu>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <tsl8w06pv1t.fsf@carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 13:37:40 -0500
Message-ID: <1291401460.20307.240.camel@ray>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: "krbdev@mit.edu" <krbdev@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: krbdev-bounces@mit.edu
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 13:31 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Are there any differences between the Heimdal and MIT style checks for
> current checksums?
Not really; I guess this isn't really a practical issue as long as
enctypes and checksums continue to be introduced in lock step.
_______________________________________________
krbdev mailing list krbdev@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
