IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] replacing PSKs: CFRG and PAKE

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 11 December 2018 12:23 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 32EFB127333 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 04:23:08 -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 fY7o6Bo2QsqR for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 04:23:06 -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 4EBD1130DE2 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 04:23:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B522120072; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 07:22:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 86E09E15; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 07:23:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 864729D9; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 07:23:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Valery Smyslov <smyslov.ietf@gmail.com>
cc: 'Paul Wouters' <paul@nohats.ca>, 'Nico Williams' <nico@cryptonector.com>, ipsec@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <035701d49149$71640f10$542c2d30$@gmail.com>
References: <25207.1544136532@localhost> <026601d49061$8809ad30$981d0790$@gmail.com> <29587.1544482818@localhost> <20181210231958.GC15561@localhost> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1812101846010.29141@bofh.nohats.ca> <20181211001622.GD15561@localhost> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1812102042330.22448@bofh.nohats.ca> <035701d49149$71640f10$542c2d30$@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: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 07:23:05 -0500
Message-ID: <2503.1544530985@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/afABv5X5T_FkUYUneZijygiV7v4>
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 12:23:08 -0000

Valery Smyslov <smyslov.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that using PAKE for road warriors is more important than for
> site-to-site VPNs. In the latter case the SGWs are usually administered
> by (presumably :-)) experienced administrators, who can select a high-entropy
> PSK, and these PSKs need not to be memorable by users. So, generally
> speaking,
> it is more secure to use good PSK than passwords (since any PAKE defends
> only

If we assume highly competent administrators, then we don't need a PAKE
at all.   What I heard from the IPsecME record was that many in the room
felt that this was where ther was a weakness.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email