IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Curdle] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-curves-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Mark D. Baushke" <mdb@juniper.net> Wed, 28 August 2019 15:53 UTC

Return-Path: <mdb@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E69B112088A; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 TV-iYS2cH1aV; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:53:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com [67.231.152.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 403A7120828; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:53:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108162.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id x7SFoQm7011412; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:53:40 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : from : mime-version : content-type : date : message-id; s=PPS1017; bh=xSKtnQY1RdaKnwX+PK+ZTBoKxxG+RshMrncjzeDkP3k=; b=XWMmj7w9hH3ccYjg5segBogWDtSziYJV2hwjrLcdPsDwkaBEyq2PXIHm+yHt07MVB+D/ gqPNFbIkXx7D9dqGVgZ5OyxR9iNYICfdX1rfCPc6XLNcRopTGhc4IndJDITpKh1v+i3K mWAyl2kCWOOYSaYKGeB9MGytPCJK18ZoSU7mmBdeO88blTxxsremrjSuqpK5T4pHTwPU +P4T0R09gdOs45poHepPJeq16RGspBjEfoyg1HgHTOjZo54Jnpoq2YM5Au/ZRfs44hTP axR4PbAB+o2swNegi7rvFL45142baYLvZq8KwByUGBaTH9o0NcFGy+NJ9RhIl1p020Zy Tw==
Received: from nam01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2nam01lp2051.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.34.51]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2unhwgh1hx-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:53:40 -0700
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=LGCWYxMymJmq50ahEzgzA4hUQaVpjDTUFJIOpnLnt7ya8wAAIoYWMw7WwSMB+NlP9wVHvD8WY3aXgdj2sWhop6PAh53C8BkOztxShUmRF1vF+0+kh0a+dH+mw0Bfnu0YNANfD2iBy4WM5bFmc9P72IQZuWHwltt7Nyg/LII9E0hrTcaMVaR17izHfUeg3hnyzeP26drYuGjNxshZ9fNNNMPoPSC76lI6buzEeRgLuoO1vCXmVW5N0Og4E6TaNH2uoda0KPF+dfhFXNOAkEswo3Qx8u+XcF9NuGCb5TYPU2ZFcTvsMM6fyCuzJZeeJJa63gjvkhz0tnrBGLEvJFnuhg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=xSKtnQY1RdaKnwX+PK+ZTBoKxxG+RshMrncjzeDkP3k=; b=iapXWox9nsR0floz4c6fKz9zIsec7paICBPKlwzcU7zq+jpozaZrYvSyA55yhiBPZgNloLcEAECCz/p/W9rDGGd07m8mV34TwFKaycKMEhZf1MBFVxqrnbTqs1NsFjpB8NdNrzZhfECTOkyu3OQqZhyXPu+TuYJ3jI1ROopvM3jpHZVq/XIn0sEid7DQGEGyiAEOeGVcz57eh2v3GZuW7/qo5AIiNiA2MwZ9sAh6Sgr1+7iVkENqkUvW/QJa9u9+6ikUKpaxvydGnvC3k6e4aRqoGP3fnX8op0uoBQlxSQ+g1BnOxrIcseEsseJw05+0tgK8IN7xkHWbrzvZJOIBHg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=softfail (sender ip is 66.129.239.12) smtp.rcpttodomain=ietf.org smtp.mailfrom=juniper.net; dmarc=fail (p=reject sp=reject pct=100) action=oreject header.from=juniper.net; dkim=none (message not signed); arc=none
Received: from CH2PR05CA0020.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:610::33) by BN6PR05MB3604.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:405:3e::11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2220.14; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:53:26 +0000
Received: from CO1NAM05FT032.eop-nam05.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:f400:7e50::207) by CH2PR05CA0020.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:610::33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.20.2199.14 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:53:25 +0000
Received-SPF: SoftFail (protection.outlook.com: domain of transitioning juniper.net discourages use of 66.129.239.12 as permitted sender)
Received: from P-EXFEND-EQX-01.jnpr.net (66.129.239.12) by CO1NAM05FT032.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.96.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.20.2220.7 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:53:25 +0000
Received: from P-EXBEND-EQX-01.jnpr.net (10.104.8.52) by P-EXFEND-EQX-01.jnpr.net (10.104.8.54) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:53:24 -0700
Received: from p-mailhub01.juniper.net (10.104.20.6) by P-EXBEND-EQX-01.jnpr.net (10.104.8.52) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:53:24 -0700
Received: from contrail-ubm16-mdb.svec1.juniper.net ([10.163.18.199]) by p-mailhub01.juniper.net (8.14.4/8.11.3) with ESMTP id x7SFrNIW028831; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:53:23 -0700 (envelope-from mdb@juniper.net)
To: =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-curves@ietf.org, Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>, curdle-chairs@ietf.org, curdle@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <156699015116.32300.11396032996637636651.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <156699015116.32300.11396032996637636651.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Comments: In-reply-to: =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind_via_Datatracker?= <noreply@ietf.org> message dated "Wed, 28 Aug 2019 04:02:31 -0700."
From: "Mark D. Baushke" <mdb@juniper.net>
X-Phone: +1 408 745-2952 (Office)
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: #8D_6URD2G%vC.hzU<dI&#Y9szHj$'mGtUq&d=rXy^L$-=G_-LmZ^5!Fszk:yXZp$k\nTF? 8Up0!v/%1Q[(d?ES0mQW8dRCXi18gK)luJu)loHk, }4{Vi`yX?p?crF5o:LL{6#eiO:(E:YMxLXULB k|'a*EjN.B&L+[J!PhJ*aX0n:5/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:53:23 -0700
Message-ID: <18058.1567007603@contrail-ubm16-mdb.svec1.juniper.net>
X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e3cb0ff2-54e7-4646-8a04-0dae4ac7b136
X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-HT: Tenant
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:66.129.239.12; IPV:NLI; CTRY:US; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(4636009)(39860400002)(346002)(136003)(396003)(376002)(2980300002)(189003)(199004)(26005)(476003)(97876018)(5660300002)(6916009)(356004)(446003)(47776003)(316002)(186003)(2906002)(229853002)(117636001)(50466002)(7696005)(86362001)(50226002)(51416003)(76176011)(4326008)(4744005)(336012)(54906003)(16586007)(426003)(305945005)(81156014)(81166006)(224303003)(70586007)(478600001)(11346002)(6246003)(126002)(70206006)(486006)(53936002)(8936002)(48376002)(62816006); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN6PR05MB3604; H:P-EXFEND-EQX-01.jnpr.net; FPR:; SPF:SoftFail; LANG:en; PTR:InfoDomainNonexistent; MX:1; A:1;
X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: a0e07c8d-852b-4ecf-5e65-08d72bcfdcbd
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600166)(711020)(4605104)(4710121)(4711137)(1401327)(4618075)(2017052603328); SRVR:BN6PR05MB3604;
X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: BN6PR05MB3604:
X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: <BN6PR05MB36042EE6CBD4E851504F623CBFA30@BN6PR05MB3604.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
X-MS-Oob-TLC-OOBClassifiers: OLM:10000;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 014304E855
X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: Nhk48jIRKvLJ7h3YTE3wD/Ogu3tsZ0aKFnZZTuriHXxoK00s9+FOpd9Hi9OFiT8Gi3iCwwffOdJ/qiEbemsY+ST7UNP4M9JWFSazkuV2Bzu8cEgh55ZuMShKjqCl/O9sGRP2hlgFaFS4WbyxR2By2YRL8/dooG6WxizQghRKqtU8LGOo1i6HEBUIx085CBhJ89R6QBd2YpcircAMimb8fiQQ91HLlNc6BdD9ijb0KPeud1wC87c92ThsVAd7it6vWUjwUm+dTntCU7Dw1Mz8jCnp3Nxtqjs8tdFMvOjp3YBRU1C7yHAmjUo1pYvdW+UX1632ysFxX3H5nrUV9B+jHI0fZ7y0POeLwEfuPZ5mDNCtf/8Kg2OfJqeQSxmAoic8p1WH7RaY0QErfaEd0/mITXewqUYv7IwO2ouZ6k6wDj0=
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Aug 2019 15:53:25.5205 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: a0e07c8d-852b-4ecf-5e65-08d72bcfdcbd
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4; Ip=[66.129.239.12]; Helo=[P-EXFEND-EQX-01.jnpr.net]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR05MB3604
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.70,1.0.8 definitions=2019-08-28_08:2019-08-28,2019-08-28 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 clxscore=1011 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=545 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1906280000 definitions=main-1908280160
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/curdle/qTWWpXHF08FNIfl8pN6OkXQbqPk>
Subject: Re: [Curdle] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-curves-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." <curdle.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/curdle>, <mailto:curdle-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/curdle/>
List-Post: <mailto:curdle@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:curdle-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/curdle>, <mailto:curdle-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:53:53 -0000

Hi Marja,

I did not write the original "Copying Conditions" section and would
rather have the approval of the other authors before it is removed.
I have no objections myself.

In section 3, the appropriate SSH "protocol error" might be one of a
two:

  SSH_ERR_KEY_INVALID_EC_VALUE for zeros found for the all-zero shared
  secret

and
  
  SSH_ERR_SIGNATURE_INVALID if the blob is not the correct size for a
  public key

However, an implementation miight return SSH_ERR_SIGNATURE_INVALID
rather than SSH_ERR_KEY_INVALID_EC_VALUE depending on how the
implementation was written.

As long as the connection aborts and does not continue in the case of a
"protocol error", it is sufficient in my opinion.

Is it really needful to be prescriptive in this given that many
implementations of this code have already been fielded and I do not
have any ability to know which design choices they made?

	-- Mark

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email