Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsecme-pace-ikev2
"Dan Harkins" <dharkins@lounge.org> Thu, 14 April 2011 17:47 UTC
Return-Path: <dharkins@lounge.org>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 409E4E06CD for <secdir@ietfc.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HiwDb0PzZ68t for <secdir@ietfc.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from colo.trepanning.net (colo.trepanning.net [69.55.226.174]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3610AE0690 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.trepanning.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by colo.trepanning.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1D211022404C; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 69.12.173.8 (SquirrelMail authenticated user dharkins@lounge.org) by www.trepanning.net with HTTP; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <9c05d036d0e99a053cf977d3f2c441db.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimqGh84igi5iVJop6O2reG8WF8s-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AC6674AB7BC78549BB231821ABF7A9AEB530189991@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <4DA69C8A.7000305@gmail.com> <BANLkTi=3WCvUgtLdNknDog--UniYM1G9Bg@mail.gmail.com> <4DA72605.10506@gmail.com> <BANLkTikXF=S3NugNBErZZGLngyCECh=jTw@mail.gmail.com> <ced915e87f60e86c5db6f21f7e94d1a3.squirrel@www.trepanning.net> <BANLkTimqGh84igi5iVJop6O2reG8WF8s-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:47:51 -0700
From: Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.14 [SVN]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Cc: "draft-kuegler-ipsecme-pace-ikev2@tools.ietf.org" <draft-kuegler-ipsecme-pace-ikev2@tools.ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsecme-pace-ikev2
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:47:53 -0000
Hi Nico, On Thu, April 14, 2011 10:25 am, Nico Williams wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org> wrote: >> On Thu, April 14, 2011 9:57 am, Nico Williams wrote: >>> This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of SCRAM and channel >>> binding. >>> >>> SCRAM with channel binding to a secure channel is as secure as PACE, >>> and arguably more so. >> >> Â PACE does not require a secure channel to be passed through. In fact, >> the way it's used there is no security (yet), it's just an >> unauthenticated >> Diffie-Hellman that "protects" the channel that PACE is done through. >> PACE performs authentication of the IKE SA by doing a ZKPP and adding >> the >> authenticated and shared secret result of the ZKPP into the result of >> the >> unauthenticated Diffie-Hellman (plus assorted cruft). > > In RFC5056 terms, your "unauthenticated Diffie-Hellman" exchange is a > "channel". > > There seems to be a terminology disconnect. As a result of this > disconnect you and others are discarding the work of others (e.g., > SCRAM in this case) without understanding it in the first place. I don't think there's a terminology disconnect. Yes, it's a "channel", but the important thing is it's not a "secure channel", which is what you said above. SCRAM is not resistant to off-line dictionary attack, PACE is. So the work of others has not just been ignorantly discarded, it is just not appropriate to use in this particular case. What is needed here is to parlay a low-entropy password into a secure secret without anything else. There is no way to "authenticate the responder with PKIK" (as you implied in another email) because there is nothing else that could be used in accordance with any PKIK RFC. Using SCRAM here would be more secure than the broken PSK mode of IKE(v2) today but would not be resistant to off-line dictionary attack. Don't think of this as a username/password protocol. There is no real "user". There is just a password and the two side have to prove to each other they know it without leaking any information about it to each other or an adversary. SCRAM isn't the right tool for this job. regards, Dan.
- [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsecme-p… Stephen Hanna
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsec… Yaron Sheffer
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsec… Nico Williams
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsec… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsec… Nico Williams
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsec… Yaron Sheffer
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsec… Nico Williams
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsec… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsec… Nico Williams
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsec… Nico Williams
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsec… Dan Harkins
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsec… Yaron Sheffer
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsec… Nico Williams
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsec… Nico Williams
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsec… Dan Harkins
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsec… Nico Williams
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsec… Dan Harkins
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsec… Nico Williams
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsec… Yaron Sheffer
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsec… Nico Williams
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsec… Yaron Sheffer
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsec… Tom Yu
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsec… Nico Williams
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsec… Nico Williams
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsec… Glen Zorn
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-kuegler-ipsec… Dennis Kügler