From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Jun 8 19:56:27 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from silby.com (cb34181-a.mdsn1.wi.home.com [24.14.173.39]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA0CC37B403 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 19:56:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from silby@silby.com) Received: (qmail 94617 invoked by uid 1000); 9 Jun 2001 02:56:22 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 9 Jun 2001 02:56:22 -0000 Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 21:56:22 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack To: Don Lewis Cc: , Subject: Re: New TCP sequence number generation algorithm; review needed In-Reply-To: <200106090056.RAA16800@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com> Message-ID: <20010608214621.V94603-100000@achilles.silby.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Don Lewis wrote: > Why not combine the two schemes and feed the random per-host data from > the cloned route entry into the RFC1948 algorithm? This doesn't solve > Terry's objection, though. That thought had occured to me, but I'm not sure it would actually add any security. I've been requested to pose the algorithm to people from outside the FreeBSD project and what they think about its strength. When I hear back from them, I'll post more details. Terry needs to clarify his objections. #3 is the only one which is definitely valid. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message