IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Hipsec] [saag] NULL encryption mode in RFC 5202-bis

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 22 July 2014 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1633A1B2996; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.892
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.892 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01] autolearn=ham
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 SXWWg4buSY0a; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:25:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7290F1B297A; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:25:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E49552002D; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:27:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id A7A3A63B0E; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:25:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 936CC63B0A; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:25:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <399ECC6D-CB3D-46F7-A9D7-7465608F1B77@nominum.com>
References: <53BB798A.3080101@tomh.org> <m3lhs3dh5w.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org> <399ECC6D-CB3D-46F7-A9D7-7465608F1B77@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:25:48 -0400
Message-ID: <3510.1406042748@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/QaCbx4zBJpJ8y6Yl8iV_KrxQWBs
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:17:43 -0700
Cc: hipsec@ietf.org, James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>, saag@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] [saag] NULL encryption mode in RFC 5202-bis
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <hipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:hipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:25:58 -0000

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
    >> If those doing IP over Amateur Radio are a use case, they require
    >> NULL.

    > If Amateur Radio's prohibition on encryption is considered to be
    > important in making decisions about crypto in protocols, then I think
    > we are in a situation where we can't have crypto protocols that don't
    > disallow downgrade attacks, because implementations always have to be
    > willing to downgrade to no encryption if the other endpoint is an
    > Amateur Radio station.

Ted, you are assuming that there are no policy knobs at all.
We are talking about IPsec ESP, as required by HIP, not UTA/TLS here.

I don't understand this fear that policy knobs will accidentally get
unstuck and start accepting something weaker without administrator
involvement.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email