Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+IPsec\:\s+add\s+support\s+for\s+Twofish\s+and\s+Serpent\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+IPsec\:\s+add\s+support\s+for\s+Twofish\s+and\s+Serpent\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] IPsec: add support for Twofish and Serpent (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:48:19 -0400; The module exit code can sleep, so calling schedule_timeout is bett; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg00391.html (8,749 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] IPsec: add support for Twofish and Serpent (score: 1): Author: rvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:08:57 +0300; -0700, Stephen Hemminger escreveu: Hey, use skb_queue_purge - Arnaldo; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg00395.html (9,178 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH] IPsec: add support for Twofish and Serpent (score: 1): Author: nen <pp@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 23:25:11 +0300 (EEST); changed to the new name. This patch ensures sysfs is updated to the n; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg00398.html (9,544 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH] IPsec: add support for Twofish and Serpent (score: 1): Author: <mhuth@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:12:59 -0700; kets. I have forward-ported the 2.4.18 patch to 2.6.0-test2, included; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg00400.html (9,105 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH] IPsec: add support for Twofish and Serpent (score: 1): Author: minger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:34:01 -0400; There are also some inconsistency in logging between IPv4 and IPv6 c; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg00412.html (8,771 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH] IPsec: add support for Twofish and Serpent (score: 1): Author: Aloni <da-x@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:38:31 -0400; IDs for ESP. Regards, -- Kyle McMartin <kyle@xxxxxxxxxx> 1024D/191FC; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg00413.html (9,082 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH] IPsec: add support for Twofish and Serpent (score: 1): Author: inger <pb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:42:43 -0400; it stood with the amount of cryptanalysis the three received as part; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg00414.html (9,409 bytes)
8. [PATCH] IPsec: add support for Twofish and Serpent (score: 1): Author: Kyle McMartin <kyle@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:48:19 -0400; This patch adds support for the use of twofish and serpent as ESP algorithms. The ESP index numbers given are in accordance with RFC2407, draft-ietf-ipsec-ciph-aes-cbc-00 (before Rijndael was selecte; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg01363.html (8,749 bytes)
9. Re: [PATCH] IPsec: add support for Twofish and Serpent (score: 1): Author: Pekka Pietikainen <pp@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:08:57 +0300; Hi Nothing against twofish or serpent per se, but I have this feeling that supporting every possible crypto algoritm known to man is not necessarily wise (see eg. Practical Cryptography for the ratio; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg01367.html (9,238 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH] IPsec: add support for Twofish and Serpent (score: 1): Author: Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 23:25:11 +0300 (EEST); Very much agree. Also, I could be missing something, but I think it takes much more to add an encryption algorithm than what the patch does?!?! -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg01370.html (9,573 bytes)
11. Re: [PATCH] IPsec: add support for Twofish and Serpent (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:12:59 -0700; I totally disagree, choice is everything. That's why we allow NULL crypto algorithms. Not doing so turns this into a political thing, which I decidedly do not want our IPSEC implementation to be all; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg01372.html (9,230 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH] IPsec: add support for Twofish and Serpent (score: 1): Author: Kyle McMartin <kyle@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:34:01 -0400; The algorithms were already part of the CryptoAPI. All the patch did was simply make them accessible to IPsec, by adding numerical IDs for ESP. Regards, -- Kyle McMartin <kyle@xxxxxxxxxx> 1024D/191FC; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg01384.html (8,896 bytes)
13. Re: [PATCH] IPsec: add support for Twofish and Serpent (score: 1): Author: Kyle McMartin <kyle@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:38:31 -0400; There are simple technical arguments for doing so, SERPENT and Twofish are both either as secure, or more secure than rijndael, as it stood with the amount of cryptanalysis the three received as part; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg01385.html (9,170 bytes)
14. Re: [PATCH] IPsec: add support for Twofish and Serpent (score: 1): Author: Kyle McMartin <kyle@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:42:43 -0400; Thank you, David. I completely agree with allowing users to choose which algorithms they wish to deploy. Again, I agree. Especially given the limitations of using the private ESP id space, since ther; /archives/netdev/2003-08/msg01386.html (9,560 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]