AW: Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Bridges

t.otto@sharevolution.de Mon, 22 August 2005 11:47 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E7AlY-0007h0-55; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 07:47:00 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E7AlX-0007gv-2q for secmech@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 07:46:59 -0400
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.173]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA08265 for <secmech@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 07:46:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: t.otto@sharevolution.de
Received: from [212.227.126.202] (helo=mrvnet.kundenserver.de) by moutng.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1E7AlV-00070e-00 for secmech@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:46:57 +0200
Received: from [172.23.4.154] (helo=pustefix154.kundenserver.de) by mrvnet.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1E7AlV-0006qd-00 for secmech@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:46:57 +0200
Message-Id: <17259346.1124711217221.JavaMail.servlet@kundenserver>
To: <secmech@ietf.org>
Subject: AW: Re: [SECMECH] Framework Bindings Vs. Mechanism Bridges
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-Binford: 6100 (more power)
X-Mailer: Webmail
X-Originating-From: 6270027
X-Routing: DE
X-Message-Id: <6270027$1124711217220172.23.4.15433227011@pustefix154.kundenserver.de-1160564962>
X-Received: from pustefix154.kundenserver.de by 192.35.17.24 with HTTP id 6270027 for [secmech@lists.ietf.org]; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:46:57 CEST
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:46:57 +0200
X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de ident:@172.23.4.154
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc:
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

>
>>
>>On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 12:58:41AM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 11:10:35PM -0400, Shumon Huque wrote:
>>> > I think the Kerberos community needs to work on standardizing password 
>>> > based pre-authentication mechanisms invulnerable to dictionary attack 
>>> > (perhaps EKE, AEKE, SPEKE, SRP etc). Hardware pre-authentication
>>> > mitigates the threat somewhat. But PKINIT isn't really an option for 
>>> > the many sites that don't plan to authenticate users with public key 
>>> > credentials (or deploy PKI).
>>> 
>>> Did you attend the SACRED WG meeting at IETF 63?
>>
>>No, but I just read a summary of their session. The credential
>>mobility stuff isn't really relevant to (non PKINIT) Kerberos
>>sites. So I assume you are referring to the IPR issues with those
>>protocols. It sounds like there might be some hope though!
>>
>>> > At one time, some of us were talking about an EAP method that
>>> > transported Kerberos messages directly. It seems to me that putting
>>> > some effort into completing that work would be immediately useful
>>> > to Kerberos sites that need to deploy 802.1X or 802.11i soon.
>>> 
>>> Indeed.  That would be an example of framework bindings of a security
>>> mechanisms, as opposed to EAP-GSS, which would be a bridge.
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>Some folks at Penn are interested in working on an EAP-Kerberos 
>>method. Is there anyone else interested in this?
>
>
>Hi Shumon, 
>
>I`ve also thought about a new EAP method which makes use of Kerberos.
>When designing a new EAP method, it must extend current available set
>of EAP methods by a new mechanism.
>
>Some weeks ago, I`ve asked publicly in the Kerberos Mailing List what
>the folks expect from a EAP-Kerberos method. See <a 
>href="http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/kerberos/2005-July/008131.html">http://m
>ailman.mit.edu/pipermail/kerberos/2005-July/008131.html</a>
>Some opinions can be found there.
>
>There already exists a Kerberos extension to TLS, RFC 2712 (Oct.99),
>which can be run in EAP-TLS, so the question is: 
>
>* Is there need for EAP-Kerberos at all? * 
>
>So before all, we should investigate in how far EAP-Kerberos improves
>the TLS-based solution. 
>
>For instance, the mandatory resistance to dictionary attacks. Thomas Wu
>has given in his Kerberos paper a hint how to mitigate this, however,
>even if there is a strong-password protocol without IPR claims,
>strong password methods suffer in general from heavy computation and thus
>the EAP method would have worse performance.
>
>Any comments are welcome
>Thomas
>
>_______________________________________________
>SECMECH mailing list
>SECMECH@lists.ietf.org
><a 
>href="https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secmech">https://www1.ietf.org/mai
>lman/listinfo/secmech</a>

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