Re: bootstrapping a secure channel
From: Tom St Denis (tomstdenis_at_iahu.ca)
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:06:21 GMT
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> Tom St Denis wrote:
>> I think the amount of research you have done is just plain insufficient
>> that or you're not describing what you want better.
> Hello Tom,
> Its obvious have not read the paper.
Well ok how about you explain what you are solving before I invest time in
reading your paper? How about that courtesy?
Also you said "37 bits" is sufficient for *your* problem. So suppose the
main attraction of your scheme is that in your limited problem 37 bits of
MAC [which is really small] is "enough". For the rest of us folk who would
want a bit more security does your scheme lose it's [if any] benefits?
I'd still like to know what problem you are trying to solve.
"bootstrapping" usually means "to do by ones self". Like when GCC does a
stage2 build that's "bootstrapping".