IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [saag] Discuss at SAAG? was Re: nation state crypto profiles - draft-jenkins-cnsa-cmc-profile-00

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Wed, 03 October 2018 00:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.com>
X-Original-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5DFC1310CA for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 17:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 gL5sJSKpn012 for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 17:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4D331310A7 for <saag@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 17:06:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude (192.168.0.11) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 17:01:41 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: 'Yoav Nir' <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>, 'Paul Wouters' <paul@nohats.ca>
CC: 'Security Area Advisory Group' <saag@ietf.org>
References: <7CB10AE4-09C1-4AC5-B255-6489EF1FAE78@akamai.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1810021734350.12702@bofh.nohats.ca> <BEC2489D-FE1E-4E55-A88C-05E0143F8415@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BEC2489D-FE1E-4E55-A88C-05E0143F8415@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2018 17:06:14 -0700
Message-ID: <02a901d45aac$e83d4030$b8b7c090$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02AA_01D45A72.3BE0D930"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQLckIx/QcQNJRYO+cnoM5+nZDVk+QG/ptD6AenvBcai3uuXEA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.0.11]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/kKNQ__Z5yIoBY771ku9wvReUN14>
Subject: Re: [saag] Discuss at SAAG? was Re: nation state crypto profiles - draft-jenkins-cnsa-cmc-profile-00
X-BeenThere: saag@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group <saag.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/saag/>
List-Post: <mailto:saag@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 00:06:28 -0000

 

 

From: saag <saag-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Yoav Nir
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2018 3:03 PM
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Cc: Security Area Advisory Group <saag@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [saag] Discuss at SAAG? was Re: nation state crypto profiles - draft-jenkins-cnsa-cmc-profile-00

 

 





On 3 Oct 2018, at 0:36, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca <mailto:paul@nohats.ca> > wrote:

 

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Salz, Rich wrote:




*  (e.g. TLS ciphersuites identifiers) to use them for national-wide purposes 
*  along with "first class" algorithms. 
TLS has moved to “doc required”  Not “RFC required.”  And added a column that says whether it is “recommended” or “no comment.”  This seems like it will work out well.


Similarly, for IKE/IPsec, the IANA registries are Expert Review, not "RFC required”

 

Right. So if SAAG (or the IESG) can guide the designated experts about national crypto, that would be great.

 

Suppose (and this is just an example) the Russian government would like to use TLS 1.3 with the Kuznyechik cipher. This is assuming that it has an AEAD mode defined, so it can be used. They have several options:

1.	They can publish a document on gostperevod.com <http://gostperevod.com>  and ask IANA to register the Kuznyechik AEAD in the TLS registries.
2.	They can publish a draft (in addition to #1) and then ask IANA to register the Kuznyechik AEAD in the TLS registry while asking the RFC editor to publish.
3.	The can publish on gostperevod.com <http://gostperevod.com>  and tell everyone to squat on (0x13, 0x79)

One of the other issues that can arise from doing #1 and not doing #2 is that the version on #1 may not be in a widely understood language whereas the version that would get published as a draft (or RFC) would be in English.

Jim

 

I think we can all agree that #3 is a bad outcome, but that is what they will do if IANA won’t allocate identifiers.

 

IMO #1 is good enough, provided we can get guidance from SAAG or the IESG to recommend such registration.

 

It should be noted that a line should be drawn somewhere. I think a nation state with serious cryptographers such as Russia should get a code point for its national crypto.  I think someone who has come up with a great new algorithm that he totally cannot break should not get a code point. Somewhere between these two extremes the line should be drawn. The question is where?

 

Yoav

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email