IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] replacing PSKs: CFRG and PAKE

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 10 December 2018 23:00 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@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 12C701312F5 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:00:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 7GhBx37rc3NH for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:00:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CE671312F4 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:00:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5380920072; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:00:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 1BFC0E15; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:00:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1935E9D9; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:00:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Valery Smyslov <smyslov.ietf@gmail.com>
cc: ipsec@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <026601d49061$8809ad30$981d0790$@gmail.com>
References: <25207.1544136532@localhost> <026601d49061$8809ad30$981d0790$@gmail.com>
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 18:00:18 -0500
Message-ID: <29587.1544482818@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/HnEoSFLF-p6E1t0y6XpIcPn2q0w>
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 23:00:23 -0000

Valery Smyslov <smyslov.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm watching the video (in five minute intervals for unexplained
> > reasons... it seems like I've been watching this video for days).
> >
> > I want to +1 Dan: we need a balanced PAKE.
> >
> > I sincerely wish Tero was right: that there was no excuse not to use digital
> > signatures for good site-to-site, even between companies.  The reason we
> > don't have this is because digital signatures keep getting confused with
> > PKIs, something John Gilmore realized 20 years ago.
> >
> > I think we should ask the CFRG to pick a single balanced PAKE for us.
>
> 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.

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

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

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