IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] replacing PSKs: CFRG and PAKE

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Tue, 11 December 2018 00:51 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 F1246131360 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 16:51:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 BrVyT05QxEWa for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 16:51:23 -0800 (PST)
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 BCC94131339 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 16:51:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4747720072; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:51:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 0DFFFE15; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:51:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BC559D9; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:51:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
cc: Valery Smyslov <smyslov.ietf@gmail.com>, ipsec@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1812101842270.29141@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <25207.1544136532@localhost> <026601d49061$8809ad30$981d0790$@gmail.com> <29587.1544482818@localhost> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1812101842270.29141@bofh.nohats.ca>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:51:22 -0500
Message-ID: <24842.1544489482@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/7-PZawlaaQXAdVt0hevkoMHlZcQ>
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: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:51:31 -0000

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:
> > Because I share Paul's view that the PSKs we care about are generally
> > identical in both directions
>
> I agree here.
>
> > , and this use is primarily about site-to-site
> > inter-company VPNs.   This is note for road-warrier accesss.
>
> But not here. weak group PSK's for roadwarriors is a thing :(

yes, typo, "not for road-warrior"

> > I would prefer that the PAKE method was not wrapped in EAP.
>
> Indeed. As I explained at the last IETF's presentation, it CANNOT use EAP
> because then site-to-site admins cannot use it to connect two different
> enterprises because none wants to reconfigure their equipment to trust
> the other party's authentication infrastructure.
>
> EAP is not suitable to interconnect different enterprises.

+1.

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