Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-spop-10

Nat Sakimura <n-sakimura@nri.co.jp> Wed, 18 February 2015 09:27 UTC

Return-Path: <n-sakimura@nri.co.jp>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2CA21A03E1 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 01:27:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.907
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2=1.999, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 ZFiDtnV6z58C for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 01:27:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nrifs02.index.or.jp (nrigw01.index.or.jp [133.250.250.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 757951A0360 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 01:27:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nriea03.index.or.jp (unknown [172.19.246.38]) by nrifs02.index.or.jp (Postfix) with SMTP id A5CBE196862; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:27:03 +0900 (JST)
Received: from nrims00b.nri.co.jp ([192.50.135.12]) by nriea03.index.or.jp (unknown) with ESMTP id t1I9R3kc006003; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:27:03 +0900
Received: from nrims00b.nri.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nrims00b.nri.co.jp (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id t1I9R32Z007897; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:27:03 +0900
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by nrims00b.nri.co.jp (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.0/Submit) id t1I9R3Uj007891; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:27:03 +0900
X-Authentication-Warning: nrims00b.nri.co.jp: mailnull set sender to n-sakimura@nri.co.jp using -f
Received: from nrizmf11a.index.or.jp ([172.100.25.17]) by nrims00b.nri.co.jp (Switch-3.3.3/Switch-3.3.3) with ESMTP id t1I9R30W007886; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:27:03 +0900
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (127.0.0.1) by m-FILTER with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:27:03 +0900
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 18:26:53 +0900
From: Nat Sakimura <n-sakimura@nri.co.jp>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
Message-Id: <20150218182653.b84a14b8c26c3a506579692e@nri.co.jp>
In-Reply-To: <54E450B2.7020409@gmx.net>
References: <54E372C1.8040204@gmx.net> <20150218131359.19dae026d3e459813e21dc55@nri.co.jp> <54E450B2.7020409@gmx.net>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.4.2 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MailAdviser: 20141126
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/4_pJL8AW3G2dcRcpvRmw0db3WNc>
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <oauth@ietf.org>, naa@google.com
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] draft-ietf-oauth-spop-10
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:27:07 -0000

Hi Hannes, 

The reason I have put SHOULD there instead of MUST is 
that there may be a valid reason not to in a controlled 
environment, and it does not interfere the interoperability.
The deployment may opt to use other control than entropy, 
and SHOULD allows it while MUST does not. 

Having said that, if the WG is OK with a MUST there, 
I am fine with incorporating the proposed change. 

Cheers, 

Nat


On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:43:30 +0100
Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:

> Hi Nat,
> 
> thanks for the quick response.
> 
> I was hoping to see a statement like "The code verifier MUST have
> enough entropy to make it impractical to guess the value." in the
> text rather than the SHOULD. Given all the other statements in the
> draft I am not sure what the should actually means. Under what
> conditions would an implementer not provide enough entropy to make
> guessing impractical?
> 
> Ciao
> Hannes
> 
> On 02/18/2015 05:13 AM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
> > Hi Hannes, 
> > 
> > I hereby confirm that I have submit the draft  in full conformance
> > with the  provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
> > 
> > Re: Security Consideration (7.1) and section 4.1
> > 
> > The first part of the 7.1 is a non-normative prose explaining that
> > the implementers got to make sure that the code verifier is hard to
> > guessed or modeled. In a way, this is laying out the basic security
> > property requirment on the code verifier. 
> > 
> > Then, it goes onto the implementation guideance that one need to
> > use a cryptographic random number generator instead of relying on a
> > rand() in some language that are  not cryptographically random to
> > generate 32-octet sequence. The same text is in 4.1 as well. 
> > 
> > We did not copy "code verifier SHOULD have enough entropy to make
> > it impractical to guess the value" here because that looked
> > needlessly repeating, but if you want, I have no objection in
> > adding it to 7.1. 
> > 
> > Alternatively, in 7.1, after explaining the rationale, we can just
> > point to 4.1 for the control and implementation guidance. 
> > 
> > Re: 32-octet
> > 
> > We chose it because we are using SHA256 in generating the code
> > challange. Having more entropy does not help us here, while having
> > less octets increases the risk. 
> > 
> > Best, 
> > 
> > Nat 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:56:33 +0100
> > Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi Nat, John, Naveen,
> >>
> >> thanks a lot for your work on the document.
> >>
> >> I still need responses to this mail to complete the shepherd
> >> writeup:
> >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg14100.html
> >>
> >> I definitely need the IPR confirmation.
> >>
> >> It would also be helpful to have someone who implemented the
> >> specification as it currently is. I asked Brian and Thorsten for
> >> clarification regarding their statements that they implemented
> >> earlier versions of the spec.
> >>
> >> As a final remark I still believe that the text regarding the
> >> randomness is still a bit inconsistent. Here are two examples:
> >>
> >> 1) In the Security Consideration you write that "The security model
> >> relies on the fact that the code verifier is not learned or
> >> guessed by the attacker.  It is vitally important to adhere to
> >> this principle. "
> >>
> >> 2) In Section 4.1 you, however, write: "NOTE: code verifier SHOULD
> >> have enough entropy to make it impractical to guess the value.  It
> >> is RECOMMENDED that the output of a suitable random number
> >> generator be used to create a 32-octet sequence."
> >>
> >> There is clearly a long way from a SHOULD have enough entropy to
> >> the text in the security consideration section where you ask for
> >> 32 bytes entropy.
> >>
> >> It is also not clear why you ask for 32 bytes of entropy in
> >> particular.
> >>
> >> Ciao
> >> Hannes
> >>
> > 
> > 
> 


-- 
Nat Sakimura (n-sakimura@nri.co.jp)
Nomura Research Institute, Ltd. 

本メールに含まれる情報は機密情報であり、宛先に記載されている方のみに送信
することを意図しております。意図された受取人以外の方によるこれらの情報の
開示、複製、再配布や転送など一切の利用が禁止されています。誤って本メール
を受信された場合は、申し訳ございませんが、送信者までお知らせいただき、受
信されたメールを削除していただきますようお願い致します。 PLEASE READ:
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and intended
for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended recipient
of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination,
distribution or duplication of this message is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete your copy from your system.