RE: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Bridges

"Salowey, Joe" <jsalowey@cisco.com> Fri, 19 August 2005 17:20 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E6AXx-0000db-FL; Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:20:49 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E6AXw-0000dT-Ns for secmech@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:20:48 -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 NAA17737 for <secmech@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:20:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E6B7v-00006i-ET for secmech@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:58:00 -0400
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Aug 2005 10:20:38 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="3.96,126,1122879600"; d="scan'208"; a="655705044:sNHT28811364"
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 j7JHKX0J009742; Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
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] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Bridges
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:25:24 -0700
Message-ID: <7210B31550AC934A8637D6619739CE6905C06505@e2k-sea-xch2.sea-alpha.cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Bridges
Thread-Index: AcWjepM/XDjUrH7pQVm0NAFOvROmXgBZziXA
From: "Salowey, Joe" <jsalowey@cisco.com>
To: "Charles Clancy" <clancy@cs.umd.edu>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c
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

> From: Charles Clancy [mailto:clancy@cs.umd.edu] 
> 
> IMHO, Framework Bindings sounds like the way to go.  It gives 
> you more control over which mechanisms are used in which 
> frameworks.  Each framework has a different threat model, and 
> not all mechanisms from one framework may be good in another. 
>  For example, using basic krb5 in 802.11i-EAP is a bad idea 
> because of dictionary attacks.
> 
[Joe] I tend to agree, however I think that bridge mechanisms or
something similar can be useful tools for pulling things together.  One
example is a "generic" security layer that could use EAP keying
material.  Another may be a GSS-API mehcnaism that can make use of EAP
methods to address some of the concerns Pasi had raised with respect to
AAA integration. 

_______________________________________________
SECMECH mailing list
SECMECH@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secmech