Stephen Kent wrote: ... >>>> I *fully* agree with the fact that TCP/MD5 doesn't offer the same >>>> protection as IPsec, but it does protect the transport layer. That >>>> differentiates it from TLS. >>> >>> it offers some protection, but to say that it "protects" the layer >>> might >>> surprise folks who think confidentiality is important :-). >> >> The same is true for an IPsec SA based on MD5. The point wasn't privacy >> vs. authentication; it's transport vs. non-transport. > > First, there are no SAs that are protected via MD5, per se, although we > can have SAs that make use of HMAC-MD5. I never knew that HMAC-MD5 was not based on MD5. ;-) > But, ESP (which is a more > efficient way to offer integrity and authentication that AH), also > offers confidentiality, if desired. Thus it can "protect" a connection > to whatever extent a user wishes, depending on selection of appropriate > options, unlike the limited forms of protection offered by the TCP-MD5 > checksum option. I never knew there was a way to use ESP with an algorithm based on MD5 (e.g., HMAC-MD5-96, as per RFC4305) that afforded confidentiality either. Joe > > Steve
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.