IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] RFC 2845bis and HMAC-MD5

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 15 March 2019 12:29 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AC6E131221 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 05:29:18 -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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 nyYus64eyyIj for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 05:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (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 0EE02130E5F for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 05:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44LPyf2BcKz9Lp; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:29:14 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1552652954; bh=jOHqBrxHqKHwFtrUsXH4CrfX6A0OIbVWUNPt0OfeFJo=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=YS5FbC2BDjlAvS4O+Wj5pmdu0A5TwulWtJmerisztho/91tlklidWG58xeWmkrV5U fkD8PtEdMWxfbz4wwXK0SU+U/9m0Umebo0cL6OOUx+aVun8qJtrln48NNDnLZQBY9h vAIMWa5LPGcGUriq0UGg+rakU1avYOBNkY79/+I0=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bhb7xpQpO5Kc; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:29:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:29:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.245.204] (80-93-34-34.static.kufnet.at [80.93.34.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0120E39A620; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:29:12 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 0120E39A620
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16D57)
In-Reply-To: <20190314155324.4841ce29@glaurung.nlnetlabs.nl>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:29:07 +0100
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B35DCCF0-F236-4FB1-85D1-C10276EEF449@nohats.ca>
References: <20190314155324.4841ce29@glaurung.nlnetlabs.nl>
To: Martin Hoffmann <martin@opennetlabs.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/FDmB-bjJG0BAWCKIWFHub_RC-Xc>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] RFC 2845bis and HMAC-MD5
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:29:19 -0000

It’s too soon. Only a year or so again there was only hmac-md5

Sent from mobile device

> On Mar 14, 2019, at 15:53, Martin Hoffmann <martin@opennetlabs.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> when looking over draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis I was hoping that it
> would relax the mandatory requirement for HMAC-MD5, but no such luck.
> 
> Given that most protocols have either made MD5 optional or banned it
> outright, some modern crypto libraries have decided to drop it from
> their supported algorithms. It seems to me that forcing new code to
> include dependencies for MD5 is unnecessary.
> 
> As such, I would like to propose to move HMAC-MD5 to optional and only
> retain SHA-1 and SHA-256 as mandatory.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Martin
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email