RE: [Cfrg] proposal for informational RFC
Ran Canetti <canetti@watson.ibm.com> Sun, 11 August 2002 21:03 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21107 for <cfrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 17:03:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id RAA17086 for cfrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 17:04:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA17068; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 17:03:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA17039 for <cfrg@optimus.ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 17:03:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from igw3.watson.ibm.com (igw3.watson.ibm.com [198.81.209.18]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21098 for <cfrg@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 17:02:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com (sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com [9.2.112.57]) by igw3.watson.ibm.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g7BL31F14434 for <cfrg@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 17:03:01 -0400
Received: from ornavella.watson.ibm.com (ornavella.watson.ibm.com [9.2.16.80]) by sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g7BL2uH60680 for <cfrg@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 17:03:00 -0400
Received: (from canetti@localhost) by ornavella.watson.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3/01-10-2000) id RAA24442 for cfrg@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Aug 2002 17:02:54 -0400
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 17:02:54 -0400
From: Ran Canetti <canetti@watson.ibm.com>
Message-Id: <200208112102.RAA24442@ornavella.watson.ibm.com>
To: cfrg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Cfrg] proposal for informational RFC
Sender: cfrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: cfrg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: cfrg@ietf.org
Great idea! I guess the first step would be an I-D... Ran > > Hi everybody: > > I've been working with the IETF for a number of years, performing > mechanized security analyses of various IETF protocols, including > IKE and GDOI, and am presently engaged in an analysis of IKEv2. > A while back, when I was starting work on the GDOI protocol, I gave > an informal talk to the SMuG working group on what a security analyst > would like to see in an Internet Draft, that is what information > should be included to make a meaningful security analysis possible. > This was mainly intended to describe the type of information I need > to perform the sort of mechanized protocol analysis that I and > other formal methods people do, in which we assume that the > basic cryptographic mechanisms behave as black boxes and look > for higher-level attacks, but the requirements are general enough > so that I think that they would apply to any kind of security > analysis, including a cryptographic one. > > I've had some interest from various WGs in seeing the slides from this > talk, and I've been passing them around on an informal basis. But > I've been intending to write this up in a more permament form, possibly > as an informational RFC. It has occurred to me that cfrg might be the > most appropriate forum for this, especially since it would allow > me to get feedback from others who have done security analyses of IETF > protocols. > > Anyway, let me know what you think. > Would you be interested in seeing something like this? Does cfrg look > like an appropriate forum? > > Cathy _______________________________________________ Cfrg mailing list Cfrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
- Re: [Cfrg] proposal for informational RFC Uri Blumenthal
- RE: [Cfrg] proposal for informational RFC David A. Mcgrew
- Re: [Cfrg] proposal for informational RFC Senthilkumar Ayyasamy
- RE: [Cfrg] proposal for informational RFC Ran Canetti
- [Cfrg] proposal for informational RFC Catherine A. Meadows