Re: [Cfrg] Dragonfly has advantages

[Paul Lambert <[e-mail]>]

Hi Feng,

Thank you for the discussion.

>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Feng Hao [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> 
>>
>>Hi Feng,
>>
>>> >I agree that it has more complexity and message exchanges that other
>>> >approaches.  These other protocols have NOT been viable to ship in the
>>> >products I build.
>>> 
>>> Have you looked at J-PAKE? It's a balanced PAKE, same as Dragonfly.
>>No, not in too much detail, yet ... looks of similar complexity.
>
>
>Well, if you look into the protocol and the proofs, you may realize that
>J-PAKE is designed for "simplicity" rather than "complexity".
>
>It is my belief that keeping things simple (which should include the
>protocol specification, security proofs and implementation) should be the
>the most important consideration in the design of security protocols. Some
>people may not realize it, but the hardest task in designing a security
>protocol is actually to "keep it as simple as possible".
> 
>
>>> 
>>> http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2008/05/29/j-pake/	
>>Interesting, thanks for the reference.
>>
>>I assume this is a related better spec for this forum:
>>http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hao-jpake-00
>
>Yes. Also note that the protocol has remained unchanged from its initial
>publication in 2008.

There seems to be an ongoing disconnect between academic analysis, RFC
publications and real-world applications.

Perhaps clarity in the documentation of use cases, analysis, comparisons
and recommendations is something we can work on within this community.

Paul



>
>>
>>Seems like the identical problem space as Dragonfly, but a later attempt.
>>Less critical review so far ...
>
>
>Not sure if it's a later attempt, but J-PAKE was first published in 2008.
>It may not be obvious to some, but the protocol has actually been
>extensively analyzed by researchers in the security community and the
>industry in the past 5 years. We patiently waited for 5 years to give the
>public ample time to scrutinise the protocol and the proofs, and so far no
>attacks has been found.
>
>But as always, I welcome most critical reviews from people on this list.
>Feel free to post your comments on the lightbluetouchpaper blog, which is
>open to everyone to comment.
>
>>
>>Note - a nearly identical version of Dragonfly	 is baked into mesh
>>networking ... so I still want to see Dragonfly progress to ensure the
>>side-channel implementation details and the like are clarified to fully
>>address the comments.
>
>Of course. I think a prototype implementation of Dragonfly (in c or Java
>etc) would help clarify a lot of things.
>
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Paul
>>
>>> 
>>> In the update of "2013-12-30", you can find a prototype implementation
>>> of J-PAKE using the elliptic curve group setting.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Feng
>>
>