IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [kitten] Register too long SASL mechs?

David Lloyd <david.lloyd@redhat.com> Thu, 27 May 2021 14:54 UTC

Return-Path: <dlloyd@redhat.com>
X-Original-To: kitten@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: kitten@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F8DC3A1175 for <kitten@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 May 2021 07:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.793
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.793 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.698, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.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 UzJYNXA4Gurq for <kitten@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 May 2021 07:54:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (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 585483A117B for <kitten@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 May 2021 07:54:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1622127279; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=BgWTPBnLlADMVIaIt4LGP1E50kU727FZrCnVvXe39Es=; b=gUE+2TKHkpT/TbydorprOpHpO3mvHrYxAjK8S+3XXoqyWMwFWmRLIhUkJ8DdGh91HHTlC9 yxsgsKJnNBp2GH1rpQNwGozbZVkapMbr1O1bRJPh3lpEdrKadd43343O/ls7gXZp15gxgQ +9Xh7qkYueAxDpIhTMEDM9ts1Aeqwm0=
Received: from mail-pj1-f69.google.com (mail-pj1-f69.google.com [209.85.216.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-156-S2_dOkydNjekZQoI0I1WVg-1; Thu, 27 May 2021 10:54:36 -0400
X-MC-Unique: S2_dOkydNjekZQoI0I1WVg-1
Received: by mail-pj1-f69.google.com with SMTP id me1-20020a17090b17c1b029015f8192660bso575018pjb.7 for <kitten@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 May 2021 07:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=BgWTPBnLlADMVIaIt4LGP1E50kU727FZrCnVvXe39Es=; b=cIwJAOF5I7Qg6ZjKIsMRl3azc21VQXVEpGxmEvyMkdGAbfat7xyk1nYLROxPiWal63 FgHxhRWpOsmd6sVS/Dom71j43k5pSA7d6fBloQfj892daxoWOV+IYR78EElq7IqEc5n3 U6otntFrHf+H3F1ONAZMB0Djfh79wk00e0STm2UQRtePglir61B9Fw2kJwq3W37L6Lgl xi/b0JPfCo5Own3ur3iBaekZxyt/lJL8KNnrkEkRHEaRetsdfo38hgye78YmZRfTRG8N nnXHernqEZPb7TJgPA5l2lDbudjCCBn66lzdrFAxS2XFSyBqfMf9wGPwJ5kEMmD42Vwr vOOg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530kYzSoYi5hAo6wIJGt4+ye55FGT8yqpraD4HlmirxrzKVI0fXI TT49XUi4yMrVEUg3Y2+ICbk1rkBBZO6BTLfBrwsq5s/ElNRsu0opx1hN1VSTYHvHyMoOzAwDcP/ JRuyP9+4C2G6raVLopoz6O0M=
X-Received: by 2002:a62:860b:0:b029:2cf:ed9f:8493 with SMTP id x11-20020a62860b0000b02902cfed9f8493mr4106577pfd.50.1622127275591; Thu, 27 May 2021 07:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzOgwTxnsSGIgq7iGGQt3v1oiYS67KsmbC9bIGzY+O2ev4pKKt3MqsrAEXMjl25f8lYxEmID3PncsFl2UzeZlI=
X-Received: by 2002:a62:860b:0:b029:2cf:ed9f:8493 with SMTP id x11-20020a62860b0000b02902cfed9f8493mr4106555pfd.50.1622127275256; Thu, 27 May 2021 07:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <87im35a9mi.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <b6e58ea8-2f9e-56c7-266c-f423f5368310@secure-endpoints.com>
In-Reply-To: <b6e58ea8-2f9e-56c7-266c-f423f5368310@secure-endpoints.com>
From: David Lloyd <david.lloyd@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 09:53:59 -0500
Message-ID: <CANghgrQjqJAqA30kGeWPGeFAz2hJZ=waMK6x=UGhCwoMb6K4EA@mail.gmail.com>
To: kitten@ietf.org
Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=dlloyd@redhat.com
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000005c87d05c350f0cc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/kitten/_wJ-h6UcrXJIAJhpvdlepFNzoqs>
Subject: Re: [kitten] Register too long SASL mechs?
X-BeenThere: kitten@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Common Authentication Technologies - Next Generation <kitten.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/kitten>, <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/kitten/>
List-Post: <mailto:kitten@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten>, <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 15:22:25 -0000

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 9:05 AM Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com>
wrote:

> Am I curious how the "too long" names are working today.
>
> Do SASL implementations not enforce the name length restriction?
>

Pitching a data point in here as a Java developer: As far as I can tell,
the Java SASL API does absolutely no enforcement of mechanism name length,
so one can generally look up mechanism implementations for too-long names
without any validation errors occurring.  Consequently, unless the protocol
implementation does an explicit length validation, too-long names probably
"just work" for most Java-based, SASL-using applications (and I know for a
fact that we relied upon too-long names in at least one case in the past).


> Do SASL implementations truncate the name to 20 characters?
>

Not in Java that I've seen.

-- 
- DML • he/him (co-author of the SASL mechanism implementations and
utilities used in JBoss application servers)

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email