On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 at 18:23, Denis Kenzior <denkenz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Ard, > > >> The previous ARC4 removal > >> already caused some headaches [0]. > > > > This is the first time this has been reported on an upstream kernel list. > > > > As you know, I went out of my way to ensure that this removal would > > happen as smoothly as possible, which is why I contributed code to > > both iwd and libell beforehand, and worked with distros to ensure that > > the updated versions would land before the removal of ARC4 from the > > kernel. > > > > It is unfortunate that one of the distros failed to take that into > > account for the backport of a newer kernel to an older distro release, > > but I don't think it is fair to blame that on the process. > > Please don't misunderstand, I don't blame you at all. I was in favor of ARC4 > removal since the kernel AF_ALG implementation was broken and the ell > implementation had to work around that. And you went the extra mile to make > sure the migration was smooth. The reported bug is still a fairly minor > inconvenience in the grand scheme of things. > > But, I'm not in favor of doing the same for MD4... > Fair enough. > > > >> Please note that iwd does use MD4 for MSCHAP > >> and MSCHAPv2 based 802.1X authentication. > >> > > > > Thanks for reporting that. > > > > So what is your timeline for retaining MD4 support in iwd? You are > > aware that it has been broken since 1991, right? Please, consider > > having a deprecation path, so we can at least agree on *some* point in > > time (in 6 months, in 6 years, etc) where we can start culling this > > junk. > > > > That is not something that iwd has any control over though? We have to support > it for as long as there are organizations using TTLS + MD5 or PEAPv0. There > are still surprisingly many today. > Does that code rely on MD4 as well?
