Re: [kitten] draft-hansen-scram-sha256 and incorporating session hashing for channel binding

Simon Josefsson <> Thu, 28 May 2015 15:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66D871AD352 for <>; Thu, 28 May 2015 08:11:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.551
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dfo13fTUTvMA for <>; Thu, 28 May 2015 08:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:9b0:1:1702::100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0AF51AD0B3 for <>; Thu, 28 May 2015 08:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4) with ESMTP id t4SFBO2k003893 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 28 May 2015 17:11:25 +0200
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 17:11:22 +0200
From: Simon Josefsson <>
To: Nico Williams <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <20150526223206.GE27628@localhost>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <20150526223206.GE27628@localhost>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; boundary="Sig_/foslGX3Kg4n1v6H.vzZQ+m6"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [kitten] draft-hansen-scram-sha256 and incorporating session hashing for channel binding
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Common Authentication Technologies - Next Generation <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 15:11:41 -0000

> > You then go on to say: "Personally, I would prefer to change to
> > another mandatory channel binding that is secure for all TLS
> > versions."
> This is not really appropriate here because it's the applications that
> need to do this, and we can't say anything here about this that will
> force them to.

> A reference to TLS-SESSION-HASH of the same level (i.e., normative
> or informative) as RFCs 5246 and 5929 would be nice.

I believe that what is required is

  1) scram-sha256 has a normative reference to tls-session-hash; or

  2) tls-session-hash uses an Update: that makes it applicapable to all
  TLS versions, and that it is clarified (if not already the case) that
  tls-session-hash must be used; or

  3) scram-sha256 uses a new channel binding that is secure with or
  without tls-session-hash.

I believe 1) and 2) would be worse than 3) for the next ~5 years or
so, and things being equal after that.  SASL libraries/applications
rarely have any influence over TLS internals, but they directly
influence the channel binding used.  Using another channel binding for
hansen-scram-sha256 should not be difficult, as far as I can tell --
SCRAM implementations needs to be changed to support the other stuff
for SCRAM-SHA256 so they could just as well be modified to support a
new channel binding too.  But I would not object to 1) or 2), if people
prefer that.