[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [TLS] Issue 66: HMAC-256 based ciphersuites

To: <Pasi.Eronen@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Issue 66: HMAC-256 based ciphersuites
From: miura.fumiaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (MIURA, Fumiaki)
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:45:01 +0900
Cc: tls@xxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <B356D8F434D20B40A8CEDAEC305A1F240514E74D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/tls>
List-help: <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.lists.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:tls@lists.ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <20071231224941.3FE235081A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <C39F04CF.19B%uri@xxxxxxxxxx> <B356D8F434D20B40A8CEDAEC305A1F240514E74D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

At Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:53:25 +0200, <Pasi.Eronen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256   

Why not SHA512 for AES256?

For example, FIPS 180-2 say that `security (bits)' for SHA-512 is 256
in page 3.


_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [TLS] Issue 66: HMAC-256 based ciphersuites
  - From: Florian Weimer

References:
- [TLS] Issue 66: HMAC-256 based ciphersuites
  - From: Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] Issue 66: HMAC-256 based ciphersuites
  - From: Blumenthal, Uri
- RE: [TLS] Issue 66: HMAC-256 based ciphersuites
  - From: Pasi.Eronen

Prev by Date: Pindic'ks can only be laughed at!
Next by Date: Re: [TLS] Issue 66: HMAC-256 based ciphersuites
Previous by thread: Re: [TLS] Issue 66: HMAC-256 based ciphersuites
Next by thread: Re: [TLS] Issue 66: HMAC-256 based ciphersuites
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread