Re: des-cbc cipher

[Simon Tatham <anakin%pobox.com@localhost>]

Sami J. Lehtinen <sjl%ssh.com@localhost> wrote:
> This shouldn't have any adverse affect on interoperability, as other
> implementations will just ignore it as not supported (or do you
> specifically look for algorithms that are not in the spec, and
> disconnect in disgust?).

*grin* no, I'm not _that_ pedantic. In fact I've just added support
for it to PuTTY, because a user claimed to have some weird kind of
router with an SSH server that supported no other ciphers at all. By
default PuTTY will give a warning about the low security level.

I agree it's not a major namespace problem - I can't easily imagine
anyone inventing another cipher called DES which needs the same
name! And I can't imagine single-DES being standardised, if it's
ever standardised at all, in a way that's different from the way
you've done it.

Just checking, really. If I'm in violation of a spec I like to at
least know about it.

Cheers,
Simon
-- 
Simon Tatham         These are my opinions. There are many
<anakin%pobox.com@localhost>   like them but these ones are mine.