Re: [IPsec] [Cfrg] Beginning discussion on secure password-only authentication for IKEv2

"Blumenthal, Uri - 0662 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu> Wed, 03 March 2010 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <uri@ll.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: ipsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 087E63A86BC; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 06:25:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
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 yhKmU3Ap7dee; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 06:25:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx2.ll.mit.edu (MX2.LL.MIT.EDU [129.55.12.46]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18DB13A8875; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 06:25:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LLE2K7-HUB02.mitll.ad.local (LLE2K7-HUB02.mitll.ad.local) by mx2.ll.mit.edu (unknown) with ESMTP id o23EPlTo017592; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:25:48 -0500
From: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0662 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu>
To: "'pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz'" <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:25:47 -0500
Thread-Topic: [Cfrg] [IPsec] Beginning discussion on secure password-only authentication for IKEv2
Thread-Index: Acq6ak8EIGcFtxyYQSa7KHc82fTKJgAcxuY+
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=5.0.0-0908210000 definitions=main-1003030097
Message-Id: <20100303142553.18DB13A8875@core3.amsl.com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 07:30:57 -0800
Cc: "'ipsec@ietf.org'" <ipsec@ietf.org>, "'cfrg@irtf.org'" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] [Cfrg] Beginning discussion on secure password-only authentication for IKEv2
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:25:54 -0000

You're good!  :-)

On the vendor side - perhaps EKE patent concern was the cause (you implement/sell free SRP and get slapped with EKE licensing)? And the users found alternative solutions in the meanwhile?

Do you think weak passwords are too dangerous overall (many other ways of attacking them outside of direct protocol attempts that we try to defend against), and so we shouldn't entertain them at all?

Tnx!
Regards,
Uri

----- Original Message -----
From: pgut001 <pgut001@wintermute02.cs.auckland.ac.nz>
To: smb@cs.columbia.edu <smb@cs.columbia.edu>; Blumenthal, Uri - 0662 - MITLL
Cc: cfrg@irtf.org <cfrg@irtf.org>; Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>; ipsec@ietf.org <ipsec@ietf.org>; paul.hoffman@vpnc.org <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Sent: Tue Mar 02 19:41:43 2010
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] [IPsec] Beginning discussion on secure password-only authentication for IKEv2

"Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu> writes:

>Note that the EKE patent expires in October 2011.  (At least I think it does;
>it was filed in October 1991.)  Depending on when you expect implementations
>to appear-- and given how long it takes to produce standards-track documents
>in the IETF -- it might not be a problem.

Given that SRP implementations have been available and more or less freely 
usable for quite some time and TLS-PSK is completely unencumbered anyway, I 
think the real issue won't be "when will implementations appear" but "why 
isn't anyone using them when they are available"?

(Mind you that's a layer 8 issue, and therefore not our problem :-).

Peter.