Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data

Magnus Nyström <magnusn@gmail.com> Wed, 16 September 2015 18:50 UTC

Return-Path: <magnusn@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C0021A8A9B for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:50:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 I7T9Y08ff3FS for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com (mail-wi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AD6A1A8A75 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wiclk2 with SMTP id lk2so83754820wic.1 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=IoIKU/t3lFrhphbAUq2z9z5Yvum8dH8lbKuaajUwFHk=; b=NzGXyuGatCUMAI9YRsMdRz1lP18iGk4txwTJUhBRycUo63Fhh4dQ0l/sdUd4/S4MVV eu6zvDH+TK1inJLBy3XAHT9Vwome3PIgQxhH4YMfJwNgpWdCObROCjYG7roge3mdt5/M NNHk8AxwMSZM9xFWCR2pnwV6w5/pTtwyGk7KcVVGGsewkt0yMOPcZBljN3lFUM8Y4ptZ z/jWzCD1S6Hii6RfthSLq4C5HjbWayCRkW0hs+n+5y6L0CHbN/IgXqV+rLWKDBa+Q7F7 fmq7DAS3qW2l7DTMD85Unu4gX/fdyQUkTH9U4lVGYN0x0cNK8QBdU5lescboJO/iRhvS p7gw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.21.137 with SMTP id v9mr21168519wie.8.1442429420584; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.27.130.200 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4EE7311A-C4AA-4153-8B19-2C3175F03D89@brianrosen.net>
References: <CADajj4bzDNqCzaJSjviVZm1nk8CrbUopzj0PrNNOUcK9SNG1ZA@mail.gmail.com> <p06240610d21e68de6c17@99.111.97.136> <CADajj4a+uJi3h1qjQ9xgGup_2teQc9hgfRyWDwwKvQS5aUJDOg@mail.gmail.com> <p06240612d21e7dc050f6@99.111.97.136> <CADajj4ZGx-8vFrZXd_CQcuG3GJWYDJoFTBQ+do-duicgadkEYw@mail.gmail.com> <2do7j0.nurejh.2vaeqo-qmf@mercury.scss.tcd.ie> <p06240616d21f443ed6d5@99.111.97.136> <4EE7311A-C4AA-4153-8B19-2C3175F03D89@brianrosen.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:50:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CADajj4ZP-QNx1EpK5D1K-VETr2TVXirc-RfHLy-WjoeW9QyjLg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Magnus_Nystr=C3=B6m?= <magnusn@gmail.com>
To: Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b873c423a466e051fe1c572
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/jDZ6xh6IHEiyMb6BvdnXJX56LHk>
Cc: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, Randall Gellens <randy@qti.qualcomm.com>, draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:50:23 -0000

That looks good to me.

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net> wrote:

> TLS MUST be version 1.2 or later.  It is RECOMMENDED to use only
>   cipher suites that offer Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS), avoid
>   Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) and follow the recommendations in BCP195.
>
> > On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:14 PM, Randall Gellens <randy@qti.qualcomm.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > At 7:38 AM +0000 9/16/15, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed Sep 16 04:09:03 2015 GMT+0100, Magnus Nyström wrote:
> >>> Yes, at least mandating TLS 1.2 or higher and recommending as per above
> >>> seems reasonable.
> >>> The references for the GCM suites would be RFC 5288 and RFC 5289.
> >>
> >> BCP195 has recent recommendations for most TLS options. I'd say it'd be
> best to use those or if not figure out why they're not correct for this
> context.
> >
> > Just to be clear: are you suggesting that we replace text suggested by
> Magnus:
> >
> >   TLS MUST be version 1.2 or later.  It is RECOMMENDED to use only
> >   cypher suites that offer Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS) and avoid
> >   Cipher Block Chaining (CBC), for example,
> >   TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384,
> >   TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256,
> >   TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384,
> >   TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256,
> >   TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384,
> >   TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 [RFC5288] [RFC5289].
> >
> > With this:
> >
> >   TLS MUST be version 1.2 or later.  It is RECOMMENDED follow
> >   [BCP195].
> >
> >
> > Note that BCP 195 does not address CBC (but does discuss PFS).  I just
> want to be clear before making the change, so please confirm that this
> works.
> >
> > --
> > Randall Gellens
> > Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
> > -------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
> > If the odds are a million to one against something occurring, chances
> > are 50-50 it will.
>
>


-- 
-- Magnus