IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-auth-06

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 09 September 2010 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D3053A6A66; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 07:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.603
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0GRO7uSxOfSs; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 07:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957BD3A6A59; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 07:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B029F9A474D; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 10:56:15 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NIKxsMPQGFah; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 10:55:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.103] (pool-96-231-149-87.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.231.149.87]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C0479A472C; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 10:56:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4C88F587.2080809@vigilsec.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 10:56:07 -0400
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100825 Thunderbird/3.1.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-auth-06
References: <74BBA174-C2A2-49F4-89F6-873146DD6655@nostrum.com> <4C881B47.7080506@kit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4C881B47.7080506@kit.edu>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-auth.all@tools.ietf.org, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 14:55:35 -0000

Will any implementations be impacted?  If not, we should ask the
Security ADs for their best suggestion.

Russ

On 9/8/2010 7:24 PM, Roland Bless wrote:
>> -- section 4.1.1, 2nd paragraph:
>> > 
>> > Is HMAC-MD5 still a reasonable choice for a single mandatory-to-implement algorithm these days?
> Good question. I thought that HMACs are not so strongly
> affected by the discovered hash algorithm weaknesses w.r.t. collision
> attacks. I could change this to HMAC-SHA-256 though. Any
> other suggestions?
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email