Re: [Cfrg] What crypto algorithm is referenced most in RFCs?

David McGrew <mcgrew@cisco.com> Mon, 20 June 2011 17:35 UTC

Return-Path: <mcgrew@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55A7811E8094 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zDuC3cka7XXM for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 545C911E8072 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=mcgrew@cisco.com; l=10118; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1308591326; x=1309800926; h=cc:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:mime-version:subject: date:references; bh=acrQ+aah/LnfX2ca/l9YlkUonjBBSf48/24byLFoEDg=; b=Z7rsR0ym2hiCoHG65wi4QTjoZEkfu1uX92YkvkSDoFsc4aXpSMF58k/p snJ0i1RRmhW7EkIyPUoFvB8zySRq0yf5QPE4Ovd2TRLaHh2yl/pQSI3PK 4WaxPrZlnLCRaV5W/I5TCQDvW4Ax+C6WoQxO0VVVmyza2W0DqLXbG5ssI s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EALaD/02rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABTpmJ3iHOhZJ1/hioEhyCKPoRghEWGfA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.65,395,1304294400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="717530203"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jun 2011 17:35:24 +0000
Received: from [10.32.254.213] (stealth-10-32-254-213.cisco.com [10.32.254.213]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p5KHZF4s009539; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:35:23 GMT
Message-Id: <EC9A176E-7C2A-4782-8522-C1656478CBF3@cisco.com>
From: David McGrew <mcgrew@cisco.com>
To: Marshall Eubanks <marshall.eubanks@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTim8VCPY9NhNbYkOE2u2HMR_r9s7sg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-273--428373849
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:35:07 -0700
References: <4A7C9D3B-70C6-4D14-A5D8-F54D84DBBEA9@cisco.com> <4DF6FCAD.1000704@Strombergson.com> <4DF7E236.3060603@ieca.com> <CF0765AF-383F-423F-A8CC-10AEB4A3E348@callas.org> <4DF8627B.1030702@Strombergson.com> <74993A34-C2B3-4FA9-B27B-557AD0E3F7BB@cisco.com> <DD276523-6F9F-466E-BC85-CD9887920E6E@cisco.com> <6679410D-BF1F-4FE4-95DB-90E542CDBBD9@cs.tcd.ie> <BANLkTinJaBzm5wWTcJW1ArF8F-O78HLGKw@mail.gmail.com> <D256DDF2-6E11-4322-91B2-3F052DB52FE3@cs.tcd.ie> <BANLkTimyLVpTNcB8BoMFgjyfa23ikbt_gQ@mail.gmail.com> <4DFD0C1B.6070909@cs.tcd.ie> <BF2B2DDA-08DD-4915-9E69-F7E83BB8D728@cisco.com> <BANLkTim8VCPY9NhNbYkOE2u2HMR_r9s7sg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Cc: Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>, cfrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] What crypto algorithm is referenced most in RFCs?
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:35:27 -0000

On Jun 20, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:23 AM, David McGrew <mcgrew@cisco.com>  
> wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
>
> On Jun 18, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>
>
> On 18/06/11 20:09, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Stephen Farrell
> <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>wrote;wrote:
>
>
>
> On 18 Jun 2011, at 19:33, Marshall Eubanks  
> <marshall.eubanks@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Stephen Farrell <<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie 
> >
> stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>
> Seems like a reasonable idea but defining the "we" that are
> noticing/sending this might be tricky. We don't want IETF WGs to start
> complaining about the IRTF CFRG crypto police. People can be touchy  
> about
> stuff like that. I'm not sure how best that'd be done to be honest.
>
>
> Write an I-D along the lines of "MD-5 considered dangerous" and get it
> published.
>
>
> RFC6151?
>
>
> I thought that there was something like this. Then quote this
>
>  MD5 is no longer acceptable where collision resistance is required
>  such as digital signatures.  It is not urgent to stop using MD5 in
>  other ways, such as HMAC-MD5; however, since MD5 must not be used for
>  digital signatures, new protocol designs should not employ HMAC-MD5.
>
>
> and point out how the new I-D disagrees with it.
>
> That's not being the Crypto police. After all, the IESG approved  
> this RFC
> and new use of MD5 should get pushback when an I-D gets to the IESG.
> Pointing this out earlier is just saving people's time, and ADs  
> generally
> appreciate having their time saved.
>
> Sure, I'm all for it if its not perceived as adding bureaucracy.
> Don't forget we already have up to 6 reviews etc. on stuff at
> last-call time.
>
> If someone has a way to generate a report identifying relevant
> -00 and -01 drafts maybe, and someone else is willing to ping
> authors and explain when they then say "so what" that might
> be good.
>
> I'd say a concrete proposal for what and how to do it, sent to
> this list (and then probably saag) for sanity checking would
> be good. So, who's stepping up to figure out details for such
> a proposal?
>
> I have a set of scripts for producing the list of relevant drafts  
> (containing more AWK programming than I would prefer to admit  
> to ;-)  It would probably be good to provide more detailed  
> information about the 00 I-Ds, such as the crypto algorithm(s) that  
> they reference.  In the case of MD5, it would be good to know which  
> I-Ds mention MD5 but don't mention RFC6151.  I am happy to  
> contribute this as an "official" RG contribution if people feel that  
> is important (I'm not sure why it would be, but if it makes process  
> easier I can generate a doc or a webpage with the IETF Trust  
> copyright notice).
>
> There are about 120 00-version drafts that reference crypto  
> currently.  Most of those are doing the right thing, and won't  
> require much if any work from crypto-reviewers.   This suggests that  
> the "steady state" workload of having CFRG review the uses of crypto  
> in new I-Ds will be manageable, if we can get a couple of  
> volunteers.  There are also 170 current I-Ds that mention MD5, which  
> suggests that the short-term workload will be higher than the steady  
> state workload.  If anyone is interested, please send a note either  
> to the list, or to Stephen, Sean, and me.
>
> I think the best way to operate would be find some volunteers to go  
> through the I-Ds that mention MD5, and send out a notification to  
> authors where needed.  If there are cases in which the actual  
> security properties are not clear, those should be brought back to  
> the RG for discussion.  If this seems fruitful, we can apply the  
> process to -00 I-Ds going forward.
>
>
> If you are going to do that, what about DES and rfc4772 ? If you're  
> going to be looking...
>
> Marshall

good point.

David