Re: [Cfrg] Adoption of draft-ladd-spake2 as a RG document

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

> On Dec 14, 2014, at 6:41 PM, Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> This message starts 3 weeks adoption call for draft-ladd-spake2. Please reply to this message or directly to CFRG chairs, stating one of the following
> 
> 1) that you are happy to adopt the draft as a starting point
> 2) that you are not happy to adopt this draft
> or
> 3) that you think the document needs more work before the RG should consider adopting it
> 
> While detailed document reviews are generally welcome, this not a call to provide detailed comments on the document.

Definitely not (3), as I think the document is in fine enough a shape to be adopted, despite it needing a lot of work.

But I would really like to know who needs a PAKE right now. PAKEs require the server to store the cleartext password or a password equivalent, creating a security issue that is potentially worse than sending cleartext passwords through authenticated channels (as in form-based or basic authentication to a TLS-protected server)

So, yes, there’s a framework for PAKEs in IKE, and one can be created for TLS, and an EAP method with a PAKE could also be used in a number of places, but all those things get little use. So without comparing the merits of SPAKE2 to the previous PAKE that got discussed in this working group, who is the “customer” for any PAKE?

Yoav