You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hugo writes
"This is unrelated to the issues raised by Douglas, but if the exporter key is intended for use as a unique session identifier (or a sort of "channel binding") then calling it a "key" is misleading. For example, while a key of 128 bits is perfectly fine (e.g. for AES-128), such length is insufficient as a channel binding string (where resistance to birthday attacks seems necessary). I do not see a note on this in the TLS document or RFC 5705."
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hugo writes
"This is unrelated to the issues raised by Douglas, but if the exporter key is intended for use as a unique session identifier (or a sort of "channel binding") then calling it a "key" is misleading. For example, while a key of 128 bits is perfectly fine (e.g. for AES-128), such length is insufficient as a channel binding string (where resistance to birthday attacks seems necessary). I do not see a note on this in the TLS document or RFC 5705."
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: