Re: AEAD in ssh

denis bider <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.secsh
Message-ID <[email protected]>
> You'd need to point to actual analysis (of the kind done in Peek-a-boo) to show that it works.

If I restrict myself to send the same amount of data, at regular intervals, independent of my packet queue; if I pick up packets from my queue if they are any, and send IGNORE messages otherwise; then this prevents keystroke analysis if done in 10 second bursts; and if I keep it up, it masks everything done on the connection.

A paper is not useful to show that this works. It evidently works. Yet, we cannot prove a negative. There are possible ways to get it wrong in practice.

If you can think of an attack, a paper can show if that particular attack is viable. But if you can't think of an attack, you can't write a paper to prove there isn't one.


> twenty years ago Tatu decided it was a good idea to use CRC32
> as an ICV, RC4 as a cipher, and encrypted lengths

By the same logic, Tatu also used C. Maybe we shouldn't use C because Tatu used that.


> So maybe we could do a profile for a special allegedly
> traffic-analysis resistant SSH, let's called it
> Data-oriented SSH or DoSSH,

You crack this joke, just after I pointed out that this costs 1 Mbps or less, whereas Netflix uses 3 - 5 Mbps. This is when Google Fiber is rolling out in the US, and we can expect 1 Gbps speeds to be normal in 15 years (if backward thinking people don't stop it).

You appear to be engaging in deliberate misunderstandings.

There's a repeated claim being made that there's an ongoing controversy about this topic. I'm now beginning to think that this would not be as much the case if we eliminated low-quality arguments.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.