Re: 2 forwarded messages...DNSEXT discussion of Day and Kaminsky

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 05:43:51PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:

> Bad people are indeed saying untrue things.  Almost everything they have
> said has been false. Yet for some reason, you want 1% of what they said,
> the patches, to be true.  Let me make this clear:
> 
>    It doesn't matter whether the patches are true (they aren't, but it
>    doesn't matter).  Due to reputation, they can't be accepted.

Patches aren't "true" or not; they simply are. What is true or not is
whether the probability of a birthday attack is reduced. And it is. You
even said so yourself:

  <[email protected]>:
    Kaminksy indeed makes the birthday attack harder, but introduces a
    new attack on the entropy of ports in doing so.

What is also true or not is whether there the patches introduce a new
attack. I haven't found one. You claim to know one, but you have not
communicated it in a way that I can understand.

Maybe I am just being dense, but given the other responses, I think the
problem is that you are not describing it very clearly.

> The qmerge patches don't reuse QIDs. The first proposal for changes sent
> to me by Kaminsky/Day, however, did do that. I saw it, did the math, and
> objected. They changed their proposal and patches very slightly.

I don't see how that could be the case. To my knowledge, the only person
who ever wrote patches for this was me. And my patches never did that,
nor did they ever incorporate any of your comments. The patches that
Kevin posted recently were sent to him on August 7th, 2008, so they were
the same patches you would have seen in the discussion that happened in
early October (the latter date I am judging from your posting on the
list and your forwarding of private discussion between you and Kevin
marked as October 4th).

-Peff