From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <e48da9739b8fbb3706a3be21ffc54583@plan9.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:59:48 -0500
From: Eric Grosse <ehg@lucent.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] gnupg or pgp for plan9?
In-Reply-To: <105ff5a0df2c594ec826765600ec7d49@quintile.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 23ae6d1e-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

auth/aescbc already includes anti-tampering checks,
based on SHA1 which is better than MD5.

But aescbc was never intended to last this long;  it was a
temporary measure until NIST settled on a common mode of
operation, presumably CTR rather than CBC.  It's not clear
yet if mode (or the hash function) is settled.

Also, aescbc was intended mainly for secstore.  We wanted
something small enough to audit.    For exchange with others,
or even yourself on other systems, I agree that PGP or S/MIME
is the way to go.

Eric