On 03/11/2011 12:28 AM, Stephen Kent wrote: >>> It wasn't any "may have become first popular", there was only >>> room for 96 bits of MAC data in the IP packet, so MD5 was >>> truncated to that size. >> >> This is an odd claim, since: >> >> (a) RFC 1828 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1828) originally >> specified not HMAC but a keyed MD5 variant with a 128-bit output. >> (b) The document that Martin points to has MACs > 96 bits long. >> >> Can you please point to where in IP there is a limit that requires >> a MAC no greater than 96 bits. >> >> -Ekr > > What Peter probably meant to say was that IPsec chose to truncate the > HMAC value to 96 bits because that preserved IPv4 and IPv6 > byte-alignment for the payload. Also, as others have noted, the hash > function used here is part of an HMAC calculation, and any collisions > have to be real-time exploitable to be of use to an attacker. Thus > 96 buts was viewed as sufficient. This sounds pretty awkward decision because HMAC per record is full (e.g. 160-bits on SHA-1), but the MAC on the handshake message "signature" is truncated to 96-bits. Why wasn't the record MAC truncated as well? In any case saving few bytes per handshake is much less of value than saving few bytes per record. Was there any other rationale for truncation? regards, Nikos _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf