nanog mailing list archives
Re: MD5 considered harmful
From: John Kristoff <jtk () cymru com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:57:41 -0600
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:52:41 -0500 "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net> wrote:
Unfortunately, Network Engineers are lazy, impatient, and frequently clueless as well.
While the quantity of peering sessions I've had is far less than yours, once upon a time when I had tried to get MD5 on dozens of peering sessions I learned quite a bit about those engineers and those networks. I got to find out who couldn't do password management, who never heard of MD5 and who had been listening to Patrick. :-) All good input that inform what else I might want to do to protect myself from those networks or who I wouldn't mind having a business relationship with. John
Current thread:
- Re: MD5?, (continued)
- Re: MD5? Christopher Morrow (Jan 27)
- MD5 considered harmful Patrick W. Gilmore (Jan 27)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful Christopher Morrow (Jan 27)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful Grzegorz Janoszka (Jan 27)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful Jared Mauch (Jan 27)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful Keegan Holley (Jan 27)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful Jeff Wheeler (Jan 27)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful Keegan Holley (Jan 27)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful Zaid Ali (Jan 27)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful Patrick W. Gilmore (Jan 27)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful John Kristoff (Jan 30)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful Keegan Holley (Jan 30)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful harbor235 (Jan 31)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful David Barak (Jan 31)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful Nick Hilliard (Jan 31)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful harbor235 (Jan 31)
- Re: MD5 considered harmful Lee (Jan 31)
- Re: MD5? Joel jaeggli (Jan 27)
- RE: MD5? George Bonser (Jan 27)