IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPsec] replacing PSKs: CFRG and PAKE

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 11 December 2018 01:02 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 0D93A1311D4 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:02:10 -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 1ewG6rDOTYJ3 for <ipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:02:08 -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 ED6E112DD85 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:02:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43DM974HGYzG7D; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 02:02:03 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1544490123; bh=JGGSm0AQMT6wbdjuP2hdTlDzbzRKqQO7c97SAR5jpDo=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=FBXlfgKdmH2R+qIpcMevcfAmrEHHVjVJS/dkYu7A0O/wekk5KZbyRGeZjmo8EFe41 O80ZClZrh+2S0U3eRaftO1T4QAHn1U3hET92ZzJPUn2n9VDX9TpWeFbR5lek2EVYRf yH+0lfw9zhL0p27j4WZhoqk1sdt6ozEzSBaJf59A=
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 u-9jdjW2v-tB; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 02:02:02 +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 02:02:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [193.111.228.93] (unknown [193.111.228.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8DE9E125611; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 20:02:00 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 8DE9E125611
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16A405)
In-Reply-To: <24842.1544489482@localhost>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 20:01:43 -0500
Cc: Valery Smyslov <smyslov.ietf@gmail.com>, ipsec@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8D5228D2-EF4B-4504-888F-BEB202DB6634@nohats.ca>
References: <25207.1544136532@localhost> <026601d49061$8809ad30$981d0790$@gmail.com> <29587.1544482818@localhost> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1812101842270.29141@bofh.nohats.ca> <24842.1544489482@localhost>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/yvEkHIpzBvTYHm4kr8E7YPnK4Mc>
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: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 01:02:10 -0000


> On Dec 10, 2018, at 19:51, Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
> Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:
>>> Because I share Paul's view that the PSKs we care about are generally
>>> identical in both directions
>> 
>> I agree here.
>> 
>>> , and this use is primarily about site-to-site
>>> inter-company VPNs.   This is note for road-warrier accesss.
>> 
>> But not here. weak group PSK's for roadwarriors is a thing :(
> 
> yes, typo, "not for road-warrior"

I understood. I disagree with the “not”. Road warriors using group psk is a thing, sadly.

Paul

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