IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [radext] New draft: RFC6614bis (RADIUS/TLS)

Matthew Newton <matthew-ietf@newtoncomputing.co.uk> Fri, 28 October 2022 22:27 UTC

Return-Path: <matthew-ietf@newtoncomputing.co.uk>
X-Original-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B14FEC14F74E for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 15:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=newtoncomputing.co.uk
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rSbyM0QVhNVI for <radext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 15:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.newtoncomputing.co.uk (mail.newtoncomputing.co.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:b2:1::140]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0882C14F744 for <radext@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 15:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=newtoncomputing.co.uk; s=feb2010; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:From:References:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Sender: Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=0gV/TG5+bOJx7byKzIVXS6cCtCN3ULSRKBpM0aX/LqM=; b=VS3fHK0M13+rclfredjeygh977 Ct2yr40D1uNnZulSfDyymzDIjXHMwgVanjIoAxqgtGaIJWLbvicg8J9VGUYyj4pCDc2rosOS/FjPD xQpl1prz6owV0IC4n0satmQidqXEhrqLxSFSSf8JEXt69ckk5E888a+dy6EfLcM0Mmzo=;
Received: from [2001:8b0:b2:1:e884:d1b7:7807:a9b8] by mail.newtoncomputing.co.uk with esmtpsa (Exim 4.92 #3 (Debian)) id 1ooXpG-0006BU-1c for <radext@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 23:27:42 +0100
Message-ID: <30752eaa-c3f0-6eb9-ce4d-e165a91be9c8@newtoncomputing.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 23:27:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.2
Content-Language: en-GB
To: radext@ietf.org
References: <d9a015f8-60a7-8eb1-65e0-ea19633c3784@dfn.de> <ef1855a1-2417-b3b0-ba4d-729bc507f151@iea-software.com> <5ac1c43d-9638-9d68-6e8f-d0f2c1137bd3@dfn.de> <B3C2A71B-0796-4B74-8016-99A8341C18F8@deployingradius.com> <CAOW+2dsac4CrafjUZLiu1UhFSArY5gV7t_uVyMwhGn19zJihKA@mail.gmail.com> <973BEA8E-45AE-403F-8CD9-F06D7289E4FB@deployingradius.com> <CAOW+2dsSEvv5Zr9ss1v4vpPbuQHbjhbe3iZ=TXRTkgR0hJU62Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matthew Newton <matthew-ietf@newtoncomputing.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <CAOW+2dsSEvv5Zr9ss1v4vpPbuQHbjhbe3iZ=TXRTkgR0hJU62Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-NC-Fw-Sig: d28eb7783fcaa8a96965cdcb17b1e1fe matthew-ietf@newtoncomputing.co.uk
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/iwdJE7t6pYRGVgBNRSGS8gDr784>
Subject: Re: [radext] New draft: RFC6614bis (RADIUS/TLS)
X-BeenThere: radext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: RADIUS EXTensions working group discussion list <radext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/radext/>
List-Post: <mailto:radext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext>, <mailto:radext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 22:27:53 -0000

On 28/10/2022 17:34, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Alan said
> 
> "  We should probably just mandate TLS 1.3 when TLS-PSK is being used 
> with RADIUS/TLS."
> 
> [BA]  The problem would still raise its head again when TLS 1.4 comes out.
> 
> One way to not force operators to configuration multiple PSKs would be 
> to hash a configured "RADIUS over (D)TLS" PSK with the TLS version 
> number to produce a PSK unique for each TLS version number.

Also to consider the time that the underlying SSL library decides it's 
going to negotiate a higher TLS version, so the admin doesn't even 
realise that the PSK needs to be changed.

If it *needs* to change, and nothing breaks, I can pretty much count on 
one hand the number of operators that actually *will* change it.

-- 
Matthew

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email