RE: [SECMECH] Generally usable mechanism requirements
"Salowey, Joe" <jsalowey@cisco.com> Tue, 05 July 2005 18:25 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dps6i-00088z-BT; Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:25:20 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dps6f-00083p-WD for secmech@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:25:18 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03349 for <secmech@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jul 2005 14:25:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DpsS3-0000fT-GF for secmech@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:47:24 -0400
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Jul 2005 11:19:30 -0700
Received: from E2K-SEA-XCH2.sea-alpha.cisco.com (e2k-sea-xch2.cisco.com [10.93.132.68]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j65IJRvM026534; Tue, 5 Jul 2005 11:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [SECMECH] Generally usable mechanism requirements
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:23:50 -0700
Message-ID: <7210B31550AC934A8637D6619739CE6905781EE9@e2k-sea-xch2.sea-alpha.cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [SECMECH] Generally usable mechanism requirements
Thread-Index: AcV/aDYfvDqfWfG/TvOxpZNM4sNJMgCJOLwg
From: "Salowey, Joe" <jsalowey@cisco.com>
To: Clint Chaplin <clint.chaplin@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 5a9a1bd6c2d06a21d748b7d0070ddcb8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: secmech@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: secmech@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security mechanisms BOF <secmech.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secmech>, <mailto:secmech-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/secmech>
List-Post: <mailto:secmech@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secmech-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secmech>, <mailto:secmech-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: secmech-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: secmech-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Thanks Clint, <snip> > > 4. MUST support key derivation based on the authentication. > This is > > the way EAP establishes and a cryptographic context. GSS-API is > > working on a standard PRF API to expose this functionality > in GSSAPI mechanisms. > > "EAP establishes and a cryptographic context." Either > something is missing, or something is extra. I couldn't > figure out which. > [Joe] I originally intended it to read "EAP establishes and exports a cryptographic context." > > > > > 5. MUST support a security layer. This is a requirement of > SASL and > > GSS-API mechanisms. GSS-API wrap and mic style protection > should be > > provided. Although this is not part of the definition of an EAP > > mechanism it should be difficult to add since EAP provides key > > material which can be used as a basis for cryptographic > functions. A > > generic protection transform can be provided for mechanisms > that don't > > provide their own. > > "it should be difficult to add since EAP" Surely this is "it > shouldn't be difficult to add since EAP" (and don't call me Shirley) > [Joe] Yes. > > 9. MUST provide documentation to describe the mechanism properties > > defined in [RFC3748]. GUAM mechanisms MUST support the following: > > generation of keying material, mutual authentication, shared state > > equivalence, replay protection, integrity protection, cryptographic > > binding, session independence, and ciphersuite negotiation > protection. > > GUAM mechanisms MAY support the following: It is also desirable for > > GUAM mechanisms to support the following: resistance to dictionary > > attacks, fragmentation, and confidentiality. > > > "GUAM mechanisms MAY support the following: It is also > desirable for GUAM mechanisms to support the following: > resistance to dictionary attacks, fragmentation, and > confidentiality." I think perhaps two thought collided in > the above sentence, and infortunately both won; either that > or it's a cut and paste error. > [Joe] It should read "GUAM mechanisms MAY support the following: resistance to dictionary attacks, fragmentation, and confidentiality. _______________________________________________ SECMECH mailing list SECMECH@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secmech
- RE: [SECMECH] Generally usable mechanism requirem… Salowey, Joe
- [SECMECH] Generally usable mechanism requirements Salowey, Joe
- Re: [SECMECH] Generally usable mechanism requirem… Clint Chaplin