From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Larsen <larsen007@web.de>
To: development@lists.ipfire.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Mark recommended ciphers/algorithms
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 09:06:07 +0100
Message-ID: <op.x9p8sh1wcahio0@atl-uetersen.atlantisgmbh.local>
In-Reply-To: <1450214308.31655.190.camel@ipfire.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5855909719948279349=="
List-Id: <development.lists.ipfire.org>

--===============5855909719948279349==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>> Weak is weak for every kind of hardware. So +1 for "weak".
>
> If we have "weak". Should we have "broken", too? For example we have to
> support MD5. I wouldn't say that MD5 is weak. It is more than that.

If we need to support it, it should be "broken", yes.


Lars

--===============5855909719948279349==--