IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] replacing PSKs: CFRG and PAKE

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Mon, 10 December 2018 23:47 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.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 1349812D4E6 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:47:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 1ezhlkWfwkDz for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:47:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F7D4129BBF for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:47:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43DKW32MyzzG73; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:47:27 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1544485647; bh=higk4Y4NjZ54jkOC/Pab17SXcE/2b0IHysd3bYhbsQ0=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=ciN8sEeq5BFm+hDOs7YvH3rgQIxsWa4kC/EM9fCbbzirZa/3mMPAL6p+/9/MMbSuU yJ7QXgDa8VrHObZ3KUpupHK2vIx8qLkbkRLr4g01hO7Kw6CworbRayhximSA9zGnKT U2eMXP945Jfh+w30ffW4BcOalj4UzUXVuMJ7G43U=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PRiFt4hfQnl9; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:47:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:47:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5B916125611; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:47:25 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 5B916125611
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 520BC418A294; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:47:25 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:47:25 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, ipsec@ietf.org, Valery Smyslov <smyslov.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181210231958.GC15561@localhost>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1812101846010.29141@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <25207.1544136532@localhost> <026601d49061$8809ad30$981d0790$@gmail.com> <29587.1544482818@localhost> <20181210231958.GC15561@localhost>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/oTKupz3erYDvF5-JO2xPLZEvq2s>
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 23:47:30 -0000

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018, Nico Williams wrote:

> There's no reason to not also add support for an augmented PAKE for road
> warriors.  It's true that road warriors are already well-supported via
> PKIX user certificates

That is still missing OTP support :(

>, so perhaps there's no need, but it's very little
> extra work to support both, augmented and non-augmented.

I'd want the PAKE method to support OTP.

> (Should I be saying "balanced" instead of "non-augmented"?)

Explaining these differences on this list would be useful for me and
possibly others.

Paul

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