RE: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites
"Joseph Salowey \(jsalowey\)" <jsalowey@cisco.com> Mon, 28 August 2006 18:50 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GHmBv-0004IG-6P; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:50:35 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GHmBu-0004IB-I8 for emu@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:50:34 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GHmBs-0007UO-U0 for emu@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:50:34 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Aug 2006 11:50:32 -0700
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k7SIoWah002797; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:50:32 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k7SIoS1O006536; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.38]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:50:29 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:50:27 -0700
Message-ID: <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE50258049C@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites
Thread-Index: AcbK0PS61Y4GjeRGRVGBBiynpJ/nrQAAPJVQ
From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Aug 2006 18:50:29.0673 (UTC) FILETIME=[D5463990:01C6CAD2]
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=6075; t=1156791032; x=1157655032; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jsalowey@cisco.com; z=From:=22Joseph=20Salowey=20\(jsalowey\)=22=20<jsalowey@cisco.com> |Subject:RE=3A=20[Emu]=20EAP-GPSK=3A=20Ciphersuites; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3D2dulrjaYeLr0EwCAImBrFO70zqA=3D; b=nKZf3/u51ktMrIPv54qe5Jy1RjIxZmDlKKJ71CFApBHDQCQ2zUdUwMESZDyxqOU+iB3sGpAV ldoLH3YlTxeYo4O6fQ7zEdcN+pyuV5oa+3YZojgkYXTyC7WSeXNtV6vI;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3.cisco.com; header.From=jsalowey@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 202a3ece0492a8c7e7c8672d5214398f
Cc: emu@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" <emu.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/emu>
List-Post: <mailto:emu@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emu-bounces@ietf.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net] > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 11:37 AM > To: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) > Cc: Charles Clancy; Lakshminath Dondeti; emu@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites > > Hi Joe, > > I don't think that we on-the-fly want to use new algorithms > as they come available. [Joe] Not sure what you mean by on the fly, but I think it would be bad to have to rewrite large portions of EAP-GPSK to make use of a new algorithm. Based on Bernhard's experience with > EAP-TLS I got the impression that most EAP implementers and > users are not really excited about updating their > implementation whenever a new algorithm becomes available. > [Joe] However, new algorithms are implemented and requirements for algorithm agility exist. > Furthermore, if new algorithms become available we need to > specify a ciphersuite that makes sense for the given environment. > > The most difficult part with protocol design is to sometimes > say NO when features and optimizations are proposed. > [Joe] True, but an analysis of the cost and benefits should be done. It is also not good to end up with a protocol that is obsolete when a new algorithm is required. > Ciao > Hannes > > > Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) schrieb: > > We want to define GPSK as a framework that can accommodate new > > algorithms when they are available. I believe that Lakshminath is > > looking to allow optimizations within this framework in the > case where > > a combined mode cipher is used. At this point I'm not sure > how much > > complexity this would add to the specification. If it can be done > > simply then it might be worthwhile pursuing, perhaps David > McGrew's > > AEAD specification would help here. > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Charles Clancy [mailto:clancy@cs.umd.edu] > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 4:05 AM > >> To: Lakshminath Dondeti > >> Cc: emu@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites > >> > >> Interesting idea, but what does it gain you? Why not just use an > >> AES-CBC and CMAC ciphersuite? > >> > >> -- > >> t. charles clancy, ph.d. | tcc@umd.edu | www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy > >> > >> Lakshminath Dondeti wrote: > >>> I guess we agree to disagree. The addition integrity checksum is > >>> spurious in my view and I believe we can define things so that > >>> combined modes can be employed without encrypting > anything, so I am > >>> somewhat confused here. What's your opinion on the latter > >> part of my email? > >>> thanks, > >>> Lakshminath > >>> > >>> At 05:12 PM 8/22/2006, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > >>>> Hi Lakshminath, > >>>> > >>>> Lakshminath Dondeti schrieb: > >>>>> At the expense of generating some confusion, here is my > >> take on this: > >>>>> The objection is to having to carry multiple integrity > >> checksums in > >>>>> GPSK, if we used the combined mode *and* an integrity algorithm. > >>>> I don't agree with you. There is no reason to optimize a > >> few bits in > >>>> a pre-shared secret method. > >>>> Note that we are not talking about a protocol for data transfer. > >>>> We wanted the flexibility to use different cipher suites. > >> We do not > >>>> only want to use cipher suites that provide authenticated > >> encryption > >>>> (since we almost have nothing to encrypt; currently 1 bit > >> and almost > >>>> no EAP method provides this functionality). > >>>> > >>>> Ciao > >>>> Hannes > >>>> > >>>>> I think CCM is fine for instance, the only catch is that > >> we need to > >>>>> make sure and define AAD for CCM carefully to include > appropriate > >>>>> data into the integrity checksum calculation. So, once > we define > >>>>> CCM as the mode, we shouldn't need AES-CMAC-128 if > >> encryption is being used. > >>>>> I would suggest using CCM and specifying the use of it > >> fully so it > >>>>> can be used without misunderstandings. If you want me to > >> put some > >>>>> time into writing that up, let me know. > >>>>> cheers, > >>>>> Lakshminath > >>>>> At 10:55 PM 8/20/2006, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > >>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> the current version of the document > >>>>>> > >> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/emu/draft-clancy-emu-eap-shared-secret-01. > >>>>>> txt > >>>>>> still supports AES-EAX: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >> > +-----------+----+-------------+---------------+--------------------+ > >>>>>> | CSuite/ | KS | Encryption | Integrity | Key > >>>>>> Derivation | > >>>>>> | Specifier | | | | > >>>>>> Function | > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >> > +-----------+----+-------------+---------------+--------------------+ > >>>>>> | 0x000001 | 16 | AES-EAX-128 | AES-CMAC-128 | > >>>>>> GKDF-128 | > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >> > +-----------+----+-------------+---------------+--------------------+ > >>>>>> At the IETF#66 EMU meeting AES CCM was suggested. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Later, it got the impression that AES-CBC was more > appreciated. > >>>>>> Should we update the draft with AES-CBC? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ciao > >>>>>> Hannes > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Emu mailing list > >>>>>> Emu@ietf.org > >>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Emu mailing list > >>> Emu@ietf.org > >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Emu mailing list > >> Emu@ietf.org > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Emu mailing list > > Emu@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > > > > > _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
- [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites M. Vanderveen
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Lakshminath Dondeti
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Charles Clancy
- AW: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Tschofenig, Hannes
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Bernard Aboba
- RE: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Ray Bell
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Hannes Tschofenig
- [Emu] RFC 2716bis update Bernard Aboba
- RE: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites David McGrew
- RE: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Hannes Tschofenig
- RE: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
- RE: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites David McGrew
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites David McGrew
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Hannes Tschofenig
- RE: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Charles Clancy
- RE: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Lakshminath Dondeti
- RE: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
- Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites David McGrew