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

Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 27 March 2010 20:53 UTC

Return-Path: <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
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 239E43A69B8 for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 13:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.525
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.525 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.325, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
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 ApLqwESlqVRO for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 13:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.156]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 283353A63C9 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 13:53:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l26so434664fgb.13 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 13:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VkZ4cNHJQqrImYIT+TexN5c8taoXDGvVwq8Fyy8LpY0=; b=C3AdyGFGUYlGlu2+wdf5vSAL5cbhhUV6U7jua25Ivzl/CzZSbC1nCqIvcFrCHeIcch QFyZhQ5cCChDptWwZ0gd4P1Dam9kilpCOJ7xMJqRN9NY/LMt4h/9AjpVhqBXoxj5hat9 ar5uXdtWEd64MZPQQSq35I345t/NmalP5ta4Q=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=TVse49fRtBDidqAp2pvtyZByVHQTqOShwNNq8FA45uqd9Ct7yRcDoTvRbFitpZQbP5 j0SdKb3ovN2Ub8tvfCKvmQ//Wyfr/7BpAq/KRpeg1syi0+L9/hxE3bREm0OJLMieMNLP 2Ca/Jc34PiSTPJ3LNRALo5nDUjV/eTDlsw5uQ=
Received: by 10.87.15.14 with SMTP id s14mr6886394fgi.8.1269723204534; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 13:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.1] (bzq-79-183-28-63.red.bezeqint.net [79.183.28.63]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d6sm2135633fga.18.2010.03.27.13.53.23 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 27 Mar 2010 13:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4BAE7057.9050403@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 23:53:43 +0300
From: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>
References: <015701cacc74$9b0f3c20$d12db460$@aist.go.jp> <4BAC4283.9010002@gmail.com> <018001cacd04$d59efc50$80dcf4f0$@aist.go.jp> <4BAE10BC.7090401@gmail.com> <001001cacdd7$557f0190$007d04b0$@aist.go.jp> <3b12564381bb3d1b9eea9b3276a68487.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
In-Reply-To: <3b12564381bb3d1b9eea9b3276a68487.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipsec@ietf.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 20:53:05 -0000

Actually I do want to fix it. All you have to do is use IKEv2 with one 
of the shining new EAP methods. Such as 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-harkins-emu-eap-pwd-13.

Thanks,
	Yaron

On 27.3.2010 23:46, Dan Harkins wrote:
>
>    Kaz,
>
> On Sat, March 27, 2010 11:00 am, Kaz Kobara wrote:
>>> between gateways, people abuse
>>> PSK authentication by using it with short passwords.
>>
>> I agree, but what I wanted to say was
>> this is also true (and even worse) "between clients and gateways".
>
>    So is there a reason you don't want to fix this "between clients
> and gateways"?
>
>    Dan.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPsec mailing list
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec