IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] Comments on draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 15 February 2017 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
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 81F851296AA for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:12:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 HcRRFVwHeN4z for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:12:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb0-x230.google.com (mail-yb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42277129459 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:12:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb0-x230.google.com with SMTP id 123so46548800ybe.3 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:12:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EYdEumqpYKMX3ZMqoZ+P10qPNfE5bVjWTeW4AURFJ2w=; b=rDXm4Oahy17y1HYz+dbrWB1UWNjoLeU8sjm8DVWcEJR2Xf5gaJuYpHlZiW4OiBRA7u vWQYULaCmj+5o0xIZHh5xYSo57Q1at0iPmkbCpph+5EfA39FnjeIVRwZeZci4f8a1xOo 4TJ4mGWuPTmuHqdkZycCdOS80MZK9wN4IjQI0ag9nuLfKFCxVC4Gf5nwfkZ+sz3/nQs4 S0Ootp3O86tzUh5+oww8TcjSqXNYXqrUKctl1uAfeJ5Aghu5PuwS4kqDRLa/D6iaZlHK CQZ9Cf+l/OcuNiXGPzTjAPzvQkr2NQzgUxgVCmbxOP9VqmLG10yth+WfG0OoEENIBS+S f47w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EYdEumqpYKMX3ZMqoZ+P10qPNfE5bVjWTeW4AURFJ2w=; b=hU545ViECJvIs/X40gg3hV5xeZpbEIGY8IC+xX1+6CSDWMjpKJDnZQQmpCfF742ypT jSWzPnG8613kaMtleZmE03ig0PLyVC6L+gsQSVPCP7454nv39A+BZTJp5Dzu9QAngB+Q ZLuw1iiscLt90OVV6mp8B0B6KAYhCrVgD51hiBSP9alGTYhm7BbNyaY2XCqeC7FmbAZV /QfX4Z2EXu3lKu5yvG4GUvDvxbxr/kWAKWd/dDpjzfRItfxJCJqufmloZjljfrx8WEBU q8jWJNHK944Ju+QGqczBQ/qsItdEZok/mu7mY6rBS8t9w5XVUJEHYV5ntcKhz6m2UkBi ACoQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nL4KSR/RInhcaf5ReZlxCgQiUqwLoAq1xXTLelldRfbwQixuaEWNW6c0/IWnSSl7mH9PtIFdd+0zZ1Gg==
X-Received: by 10.37.124.195 with SMTP id x186mr25177052ybc.105.1487178744524; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:12:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.13.204.80 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:11:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AA6B091E-F68E-413C-966C-95BE4C89D5C5@gmail.com>
References: <CABcZeBP_Z-cF6Xd15e8D5snr6hgadTNQXpAan7woEqRDbacd9g@mail.gmail.com> <41B74159-1141-4ED0-B389-2C1B6452F39A@gmail.com> <0aa4a488-6762-9f8c-02c3-8718d3becf8f@redhat.com> <AA6B091E-F68E-413C-966C-95BE4C89D5C5@gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:11:44 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBOAEg9R2ynVCphn-a3eTVy_pYyhi1_rd6chz4_-jogu5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114bc396c92dec054894c89b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/tKc06savpXp2zO7kHpcyD57tR90>
Cc: ipsec@ietf.org, Paul Wouters <pwouters@redhat.com>, draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis@ietf.org, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] Comments on draft-ietf-ipsecme-rfc4307bis
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:12:27 -0000

I would use "complementary" rather than corresponding.

-Ekr


On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> One correction
>
> On 15 Feb 2017, at 19:05, Paul Wouters <pwouters@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Nit: You need only one of the public values and the complementary
> private value from the other side.
>
>
> Right.
>
>
>
>
> Instead of this:
>
>    exchange provides keys for the session.  If an attacker can retrieve
>    one of the private numbers (a, or b) with the corresponding public
> values (g***a**,* or g***b*),
>    then the attacker can compute the secret and the keys used and
>
>
> I suggest this:
>
>    exchange provides keys for the session.  If an attacker can retrieve
>    one of the private numbers (a or b) with the corresponding public
> values (g***b* or g***a*),
>
>    then the attacker can compute the secret and the keys used and
>
>
> This way it’s more corresponding (and without the comma)
>
> Yoav
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email