Re: [Ntp] Post NTS, Is shared key authentication interesting?

Daniel Franke <> Mon, 25 May 2020 13:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FC493A0BB6 for <>; Mon, 25 May 2020 06:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fGVcW7SOh4uj for <>; Mon, 25 May 2020 06:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C5043A0BB3 for <>; Mon, 25 May 2020 06:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 17so17324707ilj.3 for <>; Mon, 25 May 2020 06:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Nh7ybfUnSAjIjriMXgjEGU+wHgaSQDy/1dhy5IqKzAs=; b=miJhaZSaVzWJYmhXaIyPOahHu7AZhJ+sasMbXRtMz7qh2fito2Ydg4vL5HXzuSVZ+y OuJBc5yzgetzBLz7S784du1mMnLIFK5ZYuy0ujr8HvddhFslyJHM9qRzBAM4yFJvur6h 3fiTluTSqujztAGOjw+20OBxex8chWyKH+U5bnXLERitNW22qThU8DX9HnlLjU3/NCf+ ky2HCOSqXP3av6aKrRb7rU12g+U/fLpVy1NhzkYK03tJnpzP6RUJAR/IC3WD7OGrrn+h queM0d/y7IxbfAa50H65zNr/4ecriQZNsKxkEE/+VIwc970Pjr9bStMRvoyYOotJozdk 14dg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Nh7ybfUnSAjIjriMXgjEGU+wHgaSQDy/1dhy5IqKzAs=; b=bBiTfz1uCZCN/iYsFxVpTbs1aWK0yiKwOdmdbUVkq8amhBg9PPjgfV5ownuPLZxwPP /SN7kUgnMjbH4Qt4D3kjRjI+1EoIfqKqBqUAAX+NZs4Vhgq1NnUpTbjv6+ENwDUJ3iix sUBPtbRsrHD+AF9qpGK/jB6xmzv48UFmWQV/TImGQnRWdlLRq8mEkk6IfZuAjIPWZQkh ngN4UXAyZ7uOFugzlpGxJzpvOaaK06drLdK2Wq4jkgK4Z2i+sIF3xMyPeLHESZXEsk13 QhVUesfOvcPrBXizECHCBSq+my08IQJKw4Rc3MgptNfPNZfyFamFTk+3GbPUrDG3H1kf WYeQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533hPsfCPwtqvl6m1sc1nC/PW3oWEBKIQK7mmAT4qOOXqsQsAijB oecBgv814nJneBYG35CxjPKFc0ATt1eJh8Ac7DE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx2xwJa3xk4/NK1pG8ibJHcfbNLBSDg0hSzpdmH4Ltp0SXgaEUjuALlsbNlqIeUtHMD8IOfjG3Qug6l3Ft5olY=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:1906:: with SMTP id 6mr24242534ilz.144.1590413360400; Mon, 25 May 2020 06:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <20200525083046.GB25987@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20200525083046.GB25987@localhost>
From: Daniel Franke <>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 09:29:09 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Miroslav Lichvar <>
Cc: NTP WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000648efa05a678f71d"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Post NTS, Is shared key authentication interesting?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 13:29:24 -0000

Yes, shared-key authentication is still interesting.

Putting the MAC in an extension field is clearly how NTPv4 should have done
things from the start, but I don't see any benefit in changing until the
legacy MAC field can be killed off entirely. So I would rather just pursue
this as part of NTPv5 than adopt a MAC EF draft for NTPv4.

I would like NTPv5's shared key authentication to be a little more closely
integrated with NTS. Either accomplish it by doing a PSK TLS handshake for
NTS-KE, or skip NTS-KE and have pre-shared S2C/C2S keys and a shorter
cookie giving just a key ID.