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

[Marshall Eubanks <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:23 AM, David McGrew <[e-mail]> 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
>>> <[e-mail]>**wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 18 Jun 2011, at 19:33, Marshall Eubanks <[e-mail]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Stephen Farrell <<
>>>> [e-mail]>
>>>> [e-mail]> 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




> Looking ahead a bit, it seems like it would be valuable for the RG to
> produce a document describing the crypto algorithms that are in use and
> providing guidance.  I think it would be healthy to have a discussion in
> CFRG on the guidance, and this document could be something that we point to.
>
> David
>
>
>
>> S.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Regards
>>> Marshall
>>>
>>>
>>>  S
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Marshall
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  S
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17 Jun 2011, at 19:40, David McGrew < <[e-mail]>
>>>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:29 AM, David McGrew wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Hi Joachim,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 on the idea of making sure that current I-Ds that mention MD5 are
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> aware   Probably this could be done by crafting a short paragraph
>>>>> saying
>>>>> something like "We noticed that your RFC references MD5;
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> aargh, I meant "your I-D references MD5".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David
>>>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>>>> Cfrg mailing list
>>>>>> <[e-mail]>[e-mail]
>>>>>> <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/**listinfo/cfrg<http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/**listinfo/cfrg<http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>
>>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>>> Cfrg mailing list
>>>>> <[e-mail]>[e-mail]
>>>>> <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/**listinfo/cfrg<http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>
>>>>> >
>>>>> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/**listinfo/cfrg<http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>  ______________________________**_________________
>> Cfrg mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/**listinfo/cfrg<http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>
>>
>
>