IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev1-algo-to-historic-08.txt

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Sun, 27 November 2022 19:02 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 3AB0EC14F728 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 11:02:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] 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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r4VptSzbUcaf for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 11:02:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.85]) (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 9D862C14F719 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 11:02:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4NKyf834hJz3mt; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 20:02:40 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1669575760; bh=6zUg1HQ4UFfIY3Xu8ICwuqB0lY9qQVudjy5M0Ne9Z+I=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=g+GhbClRL/5LIkNLqob1CNPtdQ6rUqYzHSwcJzHxtJc70VhUviAhse2wpdF9kcjX7 otJ8ksEr4oN6CBNGs5l7q+I6oUZtUN+CDEoH5hQ8JAMAcnlkfK5/JyHB9UVVkDxDZg ZsNxDsHa5sciOas0Hj7AoeT/Jzwom625sWf4QgQo=
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 TQn4UKeL4mor; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 20:02:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 20:02:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A4ED941336A; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 14:02:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1D00413369; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 14:02:38 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2022 14:02:38 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
cc: ipsec@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <25470.3527.51755.35718@fireball.acr.fi>
Message-ID: <e0b4d346-0b0b-5c33-97c5-1849d89e5e36@nohats.ca>
References: <166878243717.63383.13722856524693664615@ietfa.amsl.com> <d5250375-e220-6b1c-ca6f-357d6c12674a@nohats.ca> <25470.3527.51755.35718@fireball.acr.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/pmG8cIDuQhdS5_C-U9bFt566XDU>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev1-algo-to-historic-08.txt
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sun, 27 Nov 2022 19:02:48 -0000

On Wed, 23 Nov 2022, Tero Kivinen wrote:

> I.e., the main reason being that group 2 was only MUST algorithm
> before, and moving it from MUST to MUST NOT while we do not have any
> oher algorithms as MUST was considered bad. Also the group is formed
> inin a deterministic way which should not make it possible that the
> group is created to be weak from the beginning.

Right, so if we were to update 8247 (post ikev1 historicness), we should do:

* AES_GCM_16 from SHOULD to MUST
* AES_CBC from MUST to SHOULD
* 3DES from MAY to MUST NOT

* PRF_HMAC_SHA1 from MUST- to SHOULD

* AUTH_HMAC_SHA1_96 from MUST- to SHOULD

* 1024-bit MODP Group from SHOULD NOT to MUST NOT
* 1536-bit MODP Group from SHOULD NOT to MUST NOT

Arguably, the SHA1 entries could go to MUST NOT because no one should
have ever had a need for those for IKEv2.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email