[dns-privacy] Correction to my mike statement about the provisioning draft
Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Fri, 29 March 2019 18:26 UTC
Return-Path: <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE7EC120431 for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 A913_DW1AFkS for <dns-privacy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:26:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x233.google.com (mail-lj1-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E19F120449 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x233.google.com with SMTP id h21so2779045ljk.13 for <dns-privacy@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=7UOwRLkNzXH+QIzvOIKUoz0KH4wnb62EABr+9f+0lHs=; b=CTYgEW3h/xvdOgY9qffyOWCMHUUCuB5L6HaR/2qH/93s75j9COMNzGbQHs3/wKBI3I YwN62seZ3Ie4bvAHl3PiAvrpLtdIwIApn1+r9FiLk70QhWwmrqGDkrpEdNeS54sIYFrd Yry9+3Ot3+qT5bzsXIaB922ptEeTyxad0wtkukeBPE6A9a0fcfylFN4N0h0oowPFWViB kca8RG8RAoGSgl8hvp0wvWPoGMzjZZ47BAkP15RpL2avBDrXZakEZBP0BTGjoMRPOLNL o7izangO+e2KVZIGlC6G2jmkgfPGeUeATynIyN4SfBwy8/clG80aeAR8SH0RFqK7KKDs QfIw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=7UOwRLkNzXH+QIzvOIKUoz0KH4wnb62EABr+9f+0lHs=; b=EJeiKSJ3AhFjCXbmMLQTtwM0HbTaWZqYxbwafVOwfuH9fktBi8V2m7vsMCHDQUCVKA N80I8+Y8E7YjyI0xj03PBL6fjYOk/j259Jmnep3eQ5KTs0hCdXQ52ERCFBgHxvML6Ucf InVmAEVe7xL4WwzPweXsqav9ALt397YEyoh4GkRuqe2Id+PglSplHm3d3DgTFWK6jvHk h7eQllBiab1WklPwC2agGnB989GzQUTBPG95wYya51eWInDQAbCvRODfc7Jp07+ZfQCr LYcIfpd5Mp1re7Z8gT6vrXX5mwxC2O4kGj70wTe3+ySXvfIqr8252bzO51X06RXbvoRM 1YGQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV9wX6e7tc0CrG9lLn+v6hiSlRW3k8I2i/eD5ComWDnD2pybB1S 3NoknOUuCEMqrpDjl7SkhFsoolrlkp4zWNSvw7yQm3SI
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyrD8yw6fc9sr1/yys4KtgzSnvxqeM/fwhEfawpgO8N6lfc7DV3tBxrA0Ci8yd+/cpf7/klm7OH1DmI/3eao70=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:7e0f:: with SMTP id z15mr6917503ljc.122.1553883975707; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:26:04 +0100
Message-ID: <CACsn0c=QqK+Q63yn5+dviKESUz28DLpi_uZQcNF1jXN6tBodoQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: dns-privacy@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000064f7e805853fce7b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dns-privacy/oj1KROOzhdbJkcpnAW3uXhMNnZo>
Subject: [dns-privacy] Correction to my mike statement about the provisioning draft
X-BeenThere: dns-privacy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dns-privacy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dns-privacy>, <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dns-privacy/>
List-Post: <mailto:dns-privacy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy>, <mailto:dns-privacy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 18:26:30 -0000
Despite citations to SRP-6 the rfc 5054 implements 6a which doesn't have a 2 for 1 attack. It does however use SHA1 hardcoded. Probably not a good idea. We seem to have thought there were other draft issues as well though. Sincerely, Watson Ladd
- [dns-privacy] Correction to my mike statement abo… Watson Ladd
- Re: [dns-privacy] Correction to my mike statement… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy