IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] replacing PSKs: CFRG and PAKE

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Mon, 10 December 2018 23:20 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E905131318 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:20:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 VB2KnyrIERIo for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:20:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from golden.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (golden.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.73]) (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 C767013130F for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:20:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A593F43BF9; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 23:20:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a45.g.dreamhost.com (unknown [100.96.19.78]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 44DF743C2C; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 23:20:04 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a45.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.16.2); Mon, 10 Dec 2018 23:20:04 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Left-Cellar: 164845ba4e8d9f3e_1544484004507_2202720131
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1544484004507:4184914632
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1544484004507
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a45.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a45.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE505807CA; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:20:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=Hr7y5/fHieTryY GyUutNCb33JTs=; b=pDqQzYtgu6nN0pCFFptOAMnTuv/zS594FyMUFIrC0NuvJl zZlOFMyP/QvFEroRosnDTz+Ip5EWvTShKLStbYPtG6WrSHk49goH8rr35KKOymsV do32Csi0oD1zcRK+bFoD9gdrK+eCHxpWtyWbWtXZUMLgK+iGHUyQWahmV62f0=
Received: from localhost (unknown [8.2.105.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a45.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9EDA5807C9; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:20:01 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:20:00 -0600
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a45
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: Valery Smyslov <smyslov.ietf@gmail.com>, ipsec@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20181210231958.GC15561@localhost>
References: <25207.1544136532@localhost> <026601d49061$8809ad30$981d0790$@gmail.com> <29587.1544482818@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <29587.1544482818@localhost>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtkedrudegiedgtdekucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpffftgfetoffjqffuvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjfgesthdtredttdervdenucfhrhhomheppfhitghoucghihhllhhirghmshcuoehnihgtohestghrhihpthhonhgvtghtohhrrdgtohhmqeenucfkphepkedrvddruddthedrudejnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphdphhgvlhhopehlohgtrghlhhhoshhtpdhinhgvthepkedrvddruddthedrudejpdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomhdpnhhrtghpthhtohepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/3_yTdvpTd48C7YIGXvUvJTEEVP0>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] replacing PSKs: CFRG and PAKE
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 23:20:08 -0000

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 06:00:18PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Valery Smyslov <smyslov.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why do you think balanced PAKE is more appropriate for us than augmented?
> 
> Because I share Paul's view that the PSKs we care about are generally
> identical in both directions, and this use is primarily about site-to-site
> inter-company VPNs.   This is note for road-warrier accesss.

There's no reason to not also add support for an augmented PAKE for road
warriors.  It's true that road warriors are already well-supported via
PKIX user certificates, so perhaps there's no need, but it's very little
extra work to support both, augmented and non-augmented.

(Should I be saying "balanced" instead of "non-augmented"?)

> I would prefer that the PAKE method was not wrapped in EAP.

+1

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status