[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [tor-bugs] #10893 [Pluggable transport]: ScrambleSuit spec improvements

#10893: ScrambleSuit spec improvements
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------
     Reporter:  yawning              |      Owner:  phw
         Type:  defect               |     Status:  needs_information
     Priority:  normal               |  Milestone:
    Component:  Pluggable transport  |    Version:
   Resolution:                       |   Keywords:  scramblesuit spec
Actual Points:                       |  Parent ID:
       Points:                       |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------

Comment (by yawning):

 I think 4 (keep it vague) with a provision stating that "implementations
 SHOULD use a CSPRNG" would be the best out of of the options that you
 presented.  I agree that flow signatures being different between
 implementations is not necessarily a bad thing.

 I could write a CTR_DRBG based on the AES code in obfsproxy if needed as
 well (I had to do that for obfsclient since there isn't a easy way to get
 separate CSPRNG instances out of OpenSSL).

--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/10893#comment:8>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs