IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-baushke-ssh-dh-group-sha2-01 (was Re: DH group exchange)

Damien Miller <djm@mindrot.org> Mon, 15 February 2016 07:51 UTC

Return-Path: <bounces-ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive=lists.ietf.org@NetBSD.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 234C41A88C5 for <ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:51:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.007
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.007 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006] autolearn=ham
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 V8qRGtvr4pDv for <ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:51:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.NetBSD.org [199.233.217.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B55C1A87AA for <secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:51:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix, from userid 605) id ECE3385EE8; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 07:51:14 +0000 (UTC)
Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@NetBSD.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97A3C85EE4 for <ietf-ssh@NetBSD.org>; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 07:51:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at netbsd.org
Received: from mail.netbsd.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.netbsd.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with ESMTP id 0IJ4odWI5pMM for <ietf-ssh@netbsd.org>; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 07:51:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from newmailhub.uq.edu.au (mailhub2.soe.uq.edu.au [130.102.132.209]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BB8984C6C for <ietf-ssh@NetBSD.org>; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 07:51:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp2.soe.uq.edu.au (smtp2.soe.uq.edu.au [10.138.113.41]) by newmailhub.uq.edu.au (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u1F7osMJ023729; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 17:50:54 +1000
Received: from mailhub.eait.uq.edu.au (holly.eait.uq.edu.au [130.102.79.58]) by smtp2.soe.uq.edu.au (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u1F7os1i057097 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 15 Feb 2016 17:50:54 +1000
Received: from natsu.mindrot.org (natsu.mindrot.org [130.102.96.2]) by mailhub.eait.uq.edu.au (8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTP id u1F7ortj002233; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 17:50:53 +1000 (AEST)
Received: by natsu.mindrot.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 690ECA4F34; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 18:50:53 +1100 (AEDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by natsu.mindrot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6401CA4F33; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 18:50:53 +1100 (AEDT)
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 18:50:53 +1100
From: Damien Miller <djm@mindrot.org>
To: "Mark D. Baushke" <mdb@juniper.net>
cc: denis bider <ietf-ssh3@denisbider.com>, Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>, ietf-ssh@NetBSD.org
Subject: Re: draft-baushke-ssh-dh-group-sha2-01 (was Re: DH group exchange)
In-Reply-To: <24239.1455263382@eng-mail01.juniper.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSO.2.20.1602151848200.4613@natsu.mindrot.org>
References: <99035674-2196@skroderider.denisbider.com> <24239.1455263382@eng-mail01.juniper.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (BSO 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.73 on UQ Mailhub
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.75 on 130.102.79.58
X-UQ-FilterTime: 1455522655
Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@NetBSD.org
List-Id: ietf-ssh.NetBSD.org
Precedence: list

On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, Mark D. Baushke wrote:

> Hi denis,
> 
> Two questions:
> 
>   a) Should the draft list all of the Key Exchange Method Names 
>      in the https://www.ietf.org/assignments/ssh-parameters/ssh-parameters.xml
>      table?
> 
>      If so, does the following capture the desired state?
>   
> Key Exchange Method Name              Reference     Note
> diffie-hellman-group-exchange-sha1    RFC4419       NOT RECOMMENDED
> diffie-hellman-group-exchange-sha256  RFC4419       OPTIONAL
> diffie-hellman-group1-sha1            RFC4253       NOT RECOMMENDED
> diffie-hellman-group14-sha1           RFC4253       OPTIONAL
> ecdh-sha2-nistp256                    RFC5656       REQUIRED
> ecdh-sha2-nistp384                    RFC5656       REQUIRED
> ecdh-sha2-nistp521                    RFC5656       REQUIRED
> ecdh-sha2-*                           RFC5656       OPTIONAL
> ecmqv-sha2                            RFC5656       OPTIONAL
> gss-gex-sha1-*                        RFC4462       NOT RECOMMENDED
> gss-group1-sha1-*                     RFC4462       NOT RECOMMENDED
> gss-group14-sha1-*                    RFC4462       NOT RECOMMENDED
> gss-*                                 RFC4462       OPTIONAL
> rsa1024-sha1                          RFC4432       NOT RECOMMENDED
> rsa2048-sha256                        RFC4432       OPTIONAL
> diffie-hellman-group14-sha256         This Draft    OPTIONAL
> diffie-hellman-group15-sha256         This Draft    REQUIRED
> diffie-hellman-group16-sha512         This Draft    RECOMMENDED
> diffie-hellman-group17-sha512         This Draft    OPTIONAL
> diffie-hellman-group18-sha512         This Draft    OPTIONAL

list looks ok to me

>   b) Is it desirable to specify all of group 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 as
>      to the hashing algorithm to be used NOW? Or, is it better to drop
>      15 and 17 for now? If so, is it desirable for group14-sha256 to be
>      REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, or OPTIONAL ?

+1 to dropping the odd-numbered groups and onlist listing group14/16/18

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email