On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Rob Berendt <rob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
Basically what the issue with porting newer ciphers down to 7.1 is hinged
on is a core part of 7.2.
</snip>

While it sounds like it shouldn't be such a big thing to offer 'just
another cipher' perhaps the engine to do certain ciphers, in combination
with existing ciphers, had to drastically change.

I appreciate that it could be difficult to support newer ciphers. I
was trying to say that the argument of "that's not a security fix;
that's new functionality" is bogus. A security fix that happens to
require new functionality to implement is still a security fix.

The argument of "sorry, but it's not technically feasible in a
reasonable amount of time for a reasonable cost, even though it is a
security issue" is completely different.

John Y.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.