Return-Path: 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 E9CDE1243F6 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 07:31:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.52 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NrsRuN4xZ8K0 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 07:31:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 255E6120721 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 07:31:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6088; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1512747095; x=1513956695; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=fpCkqBF2aztHvF42MPhkUQkFr9Vzlojh2p4Iv0GCS6Y=; b=Uyaks5EtHCnXnkwyvfrDKjX5PBpAMSwZc2wSJ5drByGga+Q97nRZMp+8 vK/5p5d+S1V48NfYKdmCvG2LBrhhwyHFOEo7lxZ9cqrL++hhWu89HRIMq 3KH+7/rBaWhOxZg+Gf8zz3GGFCTZFPBWZQC1rqbhMTZz0/sie/uHwSK15 Y=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AcAQD2rypa/4wNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYJKdGZ0JweOHI8AgX2RQYVLghUKJYUWAoUCPxgBAQEBAQEBAQF?= =?us-ascii?q?rKIUiAQEBAQMtTBACAQgOAwQBASgHMhQJCAEBBAENBQiJPGQQqiOKYwEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgFg1uCC4FWgWmDK4UtKIVCBaMIApUVk2qWLwIRGQG?= =?us-ascii?q?BOgEfOYFPbxU6gimCUgEbgWd4AYkggRUBAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.45,378,1508803200"; d="scan'208,217";a="328249540" Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 08 Dec 2017 15:31:30 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (xch-aln-008.cisco.com [173.36.7.18]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vB8FVUEU008661 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 8 Dec 2017 15:31:30 GMT Received: from xch-aln-010.cisco.com (173.36.7.20) by XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (173.36.7.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:31:29 -0600 Received: from xch-aln-010.cisco.com ([173.36.7.20]) by XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com ([173.36.7.20]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:31:29 -0600 From: "Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)" To: Erik Andersen , Cfrg CC: Carsten Strunge Thread-Topic: [Cfrg] Use of the term "deprecated" Thread-Index: AdNwAj7rtSh6exWUShSQuW95dPBnSgANoRsA Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 15:31:29 +0000 Message-ID: <493e5bc356fc40268177e1c8d87c5bc4@XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com> References: <000801d37003$5165df80$f4319e80$@x500.eu> In-Reply-To: <000801d37003$5165df80$f4319e80$@x500.eu> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.116.108.3] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_493e5bc356fc40268177e1c8d87c5bc4XCHALN010ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Use of the term "deprecated" X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 15:31:37 -0000 --_000_493e5bc356fc40268177e1c8d87c5bc4XCHALN010ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Erik, For what it is worth, our "subjective" Cisco approach includes the term Leg= acy which is equivalent to Deprecated. The definition is "Legacy algorithms= provide a marginal but acceptable security level. They should be used only= when no better alternatives are available, such as when interoperating wit= h legacy equipment. It is recommended that these legacy algorithms be phase= d out and replaced with stronger algorithms." In the table https://www.cisc= o.com/c/en/us/about/security-center/next-generation-cryptography.html#2 you= will see we are flagging SHA1 as legacy, MD5 as avoid. Rgs, Panos From: Cfrg [mailto:cfrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Erik Andersen Sent: Friday, December 08, 2017 4:03 AM To: Cfrg Cc: Carsten Strunge Subject: [Cfrg] Use of the term "deprecated" In the smart grid security standards the term deprecated is used for certai= n cryptographic algorithms, such as SHA-1, instead of disallowing them. NIS= T in SP 800-57, Part 1 Revision 4 has stopped using the term deprecated. What is the general feeling among list members on using the term deprecate= d on cryptographic algorithms? Erik --_000_493e5bc356fc40268177e1c8d87c5bc4XCHALN010ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Erik,

 

For what it is worth, = our “subjective” Cisco approach includes the term Legacy which = is equivalent to Deprecated. The definition is “Le= gacy algorithms provide a marginal but acceptable security level. They should b= e used only when no better alternatives are available, such as when interop= erating with legacy equipment. It is recommended that these legacy algorith= ms be phased out and replaced with stronger algorithms.” In the ta= ble https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/about/security-center/next-generation-cryptog= raphy.html#2 you will see we are flagging SHA1 as legacy, MD5 as avoid.

 

Rgs,=

Panos

 

 

From: Cfrg [mailto:cfrg-bounces@irtf.org] = On Behalf Of Erik Andersen
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2017 4:03 AM
To: Cfrg <cfrg@irtf.org>
Cc: Carsten Strunge <CAS@energinet.dk>
Subject: [Cfrg] Use of the term "deprecated"

 

In the smart grid security stan= dards the term deprecated is used for certain cryptographic algorithms, suc= h as SHA-1, instead of disallowing them. NIST in SP 800-57, Part 1 Revision= 4 has stopped using the term deprecated.

 

What is the general feeling amo= ng  list members on using the term deprecated on cryptographic algorit= hms?

 

Erik

--_000_493e5bc356fc40268177e1c8d87c5bc4XCHALN010ciscocom_--