Re: [IPsec] Agenda for Anaheim

Dear Paul Hoffman,

Thank you for your quick response.
Below is the summary.

This draft <draft-shin-augmented-pake-00.txt> describes AugPAKE. 

For simplicity, I discuss some criteria (written in
<draft-sheffer-ipsecme-pake-criteria-00.txt> and appeared in IPsecme WG
mailing list).
If I miss something, please let me know.

For references of EKE, SRP, SPSK, SPEKE and PAK, see
<draft-sheffer-ipsecme-pake-criteria-00.txt>.

----------------------------------------------------------------
1. Security
PAKE can be divided into balanced PAKE and augmented PAKE.

Balanced PAKE provides security against only active attacks (including
off-line dictionary attacks).
Examples: EKE, SPSK, SPEKE, PAK

Augmented PAKE provides security of balanced PAKE + "resistance to server
compromise" (see our draft for this security property)
Examples: SRP, AugPAKE

2. Underlying groups
AugPAKE over any groups (e.g., MODP, ECP) where the Diffie-Hellman problem
holds.

EKE, SRP and PAK need a care when selecting groups because of ideal cipher,
protocol structure or FDH (Full-Domain Hash).
FDH maps a hashed value to a group element.

3. Implementation
Because of the above reason, AugPAKE can be easily implemented.
We already implemented AugPAKE.

4. Efficiency
1) AugPAKE requires less modular exponentiation than SRP and SPSK.
It is almost same as EKE, SPEKE and PAK.

2) Number of rounds of AugPAKE is same as SRP (4 rounds).
3 rounds: EKE, SPSK (can be adjusted), SPEKE, PAK

5. Intellectual property
AIST will provide a royalty-free license for implementations of AugPAKE.
We think that AugPAKE is not involved to other patents.
(But, I am not a patent lawyer)
----------------------------------------------------------------

Best regards,
Shin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipsec-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Paul Hoffman
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 1:02 PM
> To: SeongHan Shin
> Cc: 'IPsecme WG'; 'Kazukuni Kobara'; 'SeongHan Shin'
> Subject: Re: [IPsec] Agenda for Anaheim
> 
> At 12:03 PM +0900 3/11/10, SeongHan Shin wrote:
> >I submitted the below I-D (00) and have just finished the IPR disclosure
> one
> >hour ago.
> >Could you please let me know if it is possible for me to present
> >our work in IPsecme WG?
> 
> We are not focusing on specific presentations, but instead on the criteria
> that the WG should be using to use to choose which proposal, or variant
> of a proposal, we want to go forward with. Please see the earlier
discussion
> on those criteria, and feel free to say how you feel this proposal fits
> into those criteria, as well as the criteria for which you think your
> proposal is strong.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec