Re: [IPsec] New PAKE Criteria draft posted (def. of gateway)

"Dan Harkins" <dharkins@lounge.org> Sat, 27 March 2010 19:15 UTC

Return-Path: <dharkins@lounge.org>
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 7BB3E3A6827 for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 12:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.759
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.759 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.376, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 DkbO3PI0Rrw4 for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 12:15:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from colo.trepanning.net (colo.trepanning.net [69.55.226.174]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 950A33A689A for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 12:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.trepanning.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by colo.trepanning.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6477B1022404A; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 12:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 69.12.173.8 (SquirrelMail authenticated user dharkins@lounge.org) by www.trepanning.net with HTTP; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 12:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <ae9ff68b6bd2cc3cb59d1cdb433d26a2.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
In-Reply-To: <4BAE16A4.60108@gmail.com>
References: <015701cacc74$9b0f3c20$d12db460$@aist.go.jp> <4BAC4283.9010002@gmail.com> <018001cacd04$d59efc50$80dcf4f0$@aist.go.jp> <b8b1d491f6e94e8dcc29d4bd15165b32.squirrel@www.trepanning.net> <4BAE16A4.60108@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 12:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Dan Harkins" <dharkins@lounge.org>
To: "Yaron Sheffer" <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.14 [SVN]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org, Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>, Kaz Kobara <kobara_conf@m.aist.go.jp>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] New PAKE Criteria draft posted (def. of gateway)
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: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 19:15:22 -0000

  Hi Yaron,

  You say below, "If a protocol can be specified for the general use case,
that's very well. But there will be protocols that are only applicable
to some specific use cases, and that's fine, too." But then the criteria
document says, "This document is limited to the use of password-based
authentication to achieve trust between gateways."

  So basically the criteria document is specifying it for a particular
use only when there is no protocol issue that would prevent it from being
used in the general case. It should be "very well" if it worked "for the
general use case" but the criteria draft is preventing it from doing so.

  In RFC 2409 it was not possible to do the "remote access" thing with a
PSK because protocol limitations forced the PSK to be bound to one IP
address. That's an example of a protocol limiting usage. But I don't see
that now. What could possibly limit what we're talking about _right now_
to some narrow uses? Maybe when we get around to designing the protocol
we'll run into something, and as you say "that's fine". But now, there is
nothing to limit us and no reason to, a priori, say something is for
"gateways" only.

  Of course, I could be wrong. So maybe you could explain why there is
some protocol issue that prevents using password-based authentication in
the general case.

  Dan.

On Sat, March 27, 2010 7:31 am, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> I'm afraid I disagree with you on several counts. See below.
>
> Thanks,
> 	Yaron
>
> On 26.3.2010 20:11, Dan Harkins wrote:
>>
>>    Telling administrators what they can and cannot do is really not
>> the function of our standards body. If someone wants to use a
>> "long secret" or a password to authenticate gateways, hosts, clients,
>> peers, or implementations (or whatever you want to call the box) it's
>> none of our business. We shouldn't say, "nope, sorry you can't do that,
>> this is a client and you should use a stand-alone AAA server because of
>> the obvious benefits that have eluded you."
>
> We cannot tell administrators anything for the simple reason that
> they're not looking to us for guidance. However we do have some
> influence over vendors, and we should tell vendors what we think makes
> sense, i.e. what is the architecturally correct way to use the protocol.
>
> More importantly, we should optimize the protocol (only) for the cases
> that we think are reasonable. So we should care very much about usage
> scenarios. As a concrete example, password management arguably matters
> much more to remote access than to gateway-to-gateway scenarios. Should
> we support it? Depends on the scenario(s) we want to work on.
>>
>>    We have RFCs on "host requirements" and "router requirements". There
>> isn't an RFC on "peer requirements" or "client requirements". Those are
>> terms that started in marketecture powerpoint slides and should not be
>> used to constrain or neuter our protocols.
> No. For years we've had specific IPsec work items on remote access, it's
> nothing new. If a protocol can be specified for the general use case,
> that's very well. But there will be protocols that are only applicable
> to some specific use cases, and that's fine, too.
>>
>>    Dan.
>>
>> On Fri, March 26, 2010 9:53 am, Kaz Kobara wrote:
>>> Hi Yaron
>>>
>>> Thank you for your clarification.
>>>
>>>> "between gateways" as opposed to
>>>> "between clients and gateways". So your assertion is correct.
>>>
>>> (Between gateways, administrators can set long secrets, so the
>>> necessity
>>> of
>>> PAKE seems smaller than between clients and gateways where passwords
>>> are
>>> recorded in the gateways and users have to type the passwords.)
>>>
>>> Anyway, if the scope is limited only on "between gateways" but not
>>> "between
>>> clients and gateways," the title
>>> "Password-Based Authentication in IKEv2: Selection Criteria and
>>> Comparison"
>>> seems misleading (since this itself misinforms that this criteria may
>>> be
>>> applied to IKEv2 in any cases), and the above should be clearly
>>> mentioned
>>> in
>>> the document.
>>>
>>> Kaz
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Yaron Sheffer [mailto:yaronf.ietf@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 2:14 PM
>>>> To: Kaz Kobara
>>>> Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [IPsec] New PAKE Criteria draft posted (def. of gateway)
>>>>
>>>> Hi Kaz,
>>>>
>>>> I *thought* my intention was clear: "between gateways" as opposed to
>>>> "between clients and gateways". So your assertion is correct.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 	Yaron
>>>>
>>>> On 26.3.2010 1:40, Kaz Kobara wrote:
>>>>> Hi Yaron
>>>>>
>>>>>> draft-sheffer-ipsecme-pake-criteria-02.txt says in Page 4
>>>>>> "This document is limited to the use of password-based
>>>>>> authentication
>>>> to
>>>>>> achieve trust between gateways"
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to make sure that
>>>>> "gateway" in this document does not encompass VPN clients and hosts,
>>> right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kaz
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On
>>>> Behalf
>>>> Of
>>>>>> Yaron Sheffer
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 3:31 AM
>>>>>> To: SeongHan Shin
>>>>>> Cc: IPsecme WG; Kazukuni Kobara
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [IPsec] New PAKE Criteria draft posted
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Shin,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. For the typical remote access VPN, EAP is typically more
>>>>>> useful.
>>>>>> Note that there is still need for strong password-based mutual
>>>>>> authentication EAP methods - but their home is the EMU working
>>>>>> group.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition, the IPsecME has another charter item designed to fit
>>>> such
>>>>>> EAP methods (such as the future EAP-AugPAKE :-) into IKEv2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please see again the group's charter,
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipsecme/charters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> 	Yaron
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25.3.2010 20:07, SeongHan Shin wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear Yaron Sheffer,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have one question about the draft.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> draft-sheffer-ipsecme-pake-criteria-02.txt says in Page 4
>>>>>>> "This document is limited to the use of password-based
>>>> authentication
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> achieve trust between gateways"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this a consensus of this WG?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> Shin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Yaron
>>>>>>> Sheffer<yaronf.ietf@gmail.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>>   wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       after the good discussion in Anaheim, and with the help of
>>> comments
>>>>>>>       received on and off the list, I have updated the PAKE
>>>>>>> Criteria
>>>> draft
>>>>>>>       and posted it as
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-sheffer-ipsecme-pake-criteria-02.txt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       I have added a number of criteria, clarified others, and
>>>>>>> added
>>>>>>>       numbering (SEC1-SEC6, IPR1-IPR3 etc.).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       Thanks,
>>>>>>>           Yaron
>>>>>>>       _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>       IPsec mailing list
>>>>>>>       IPsec@ietf.org<mailto:IPsec@ietf.org>
>>>>>>>       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> SeongHan Shin
>>>>>>> Research Center for Information Security (RCIS),
>>>>>>> National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology
>>>> (AIST),
>>>>>>> Room no. 1003, Akihabara Daibiru 10F,
>>>>>>> 1-18-13, Sotokannda, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-0021 Japan
>>>>>>> Tel : +81-3-5298-2722
>>>>>>> Fax : +81-3-5298-4522
>>>>>>> E-mail : seonghan.shin@aist.go.jp<mailto:seonghan.shin@aist.go.jp>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> IPsec mailing list
>>>>>> IPsec@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> IPsec mailing list
>>>>> IPsec@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IPsec mailing list
>>> IPsec@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IPsec mailing list
>> IPsec@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>