IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ace] Adoption of Low Latency Group Communication Security Work in ACE

Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com> Fri, 22 July 2016 14:10 UTC

Return-Path: <derek@ihtfp.com>
X-Original-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61C8D12DA2A for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 07:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ihtfp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JXOGzyVGh1Lm for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 07:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org (MAIL2.IHTFP.ORG [204.107.200.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A78412DA23 for <ace@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 07:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F13B9E2038; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:10:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail2.ihtfp.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29962-05; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:10:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from securerf.ihtfp.org (IHTFP-DHCP-159.IHTFP.ORG [192.168.248.159]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mocana.ihtfp.org", Issuer "IHTFP Consulting Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64F60E200A; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:10:04 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ihtfp.com; s=default; t=1469196604; bh=8qD34XkRY9gC5cfJ4HPRQx+M2uwycIZqtbMAyuxvWDs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=sqqiJ7v3JSrmVe6Ilfcr6DcwwndSOQkVxSTBSAvCRBQmUti+51yhpgabPiYsai0cG iPL3IcR/0OYl7rm2Fa3F3YXcpPKd9aPJJa8KauxycAv5hnI+JUgkFzsf9qfP4c3sZS 9ZoSaduZPnKcPYwYWvNsgK12aYU8vXisfBrIMe2Y=
Received: (from warlord@localhost) by securerf.ihtfp.org (8.15.2/8.14.8/Submit) id u6MEA3EA031888; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:10:03 -0400
From: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
References: <578F4D59.8050005@gmx.net> <5E393DF26B791A428E5F003BB6C5342AB3716D64@OC11EXPO33.exchange.mit.edu> <23666.1469091857@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <57909559.2000805@tzi.org> <655911d1-927e-56ae-1b73-903ad925ea88@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:10:03 -0400
In-Reply-To: <655911d1-927e-56ae-1b73-903ad925ea88@comcast.net> (Michael StJohns's message of "Thu, 21 Jul 2016 09:04:47 -0400")
Message-ID: <sjmshv169xg.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.2a
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/BwE8ZUfzCzepbPcn-_6t4b66WcI>
Cc: ace@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ace] Adoption of Low Latency Group Communication Security Work in ACE
X-BeenThere: ace@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments \(ace\)" <ace.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ace/>
List-Post: <mailto:ace@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:10:10 -0000

Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> writes:

>  I've said similar things before, but there continues to be this
> belief from certain folk that its too expensive to do public key
> cryptography for lightbulbs.

People can believe the Earth is flat; that doesn't make them right.

> So to be clear - yes COSE is useful.  No, it does not actually do
> anything to fix the problem of symmetric key group communications
> UNLESS you stick to the public key sections.
>
> Later, Mike

-derek
-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       derek@ihtfp.com             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email