Re: [TLS] draft on new TLS key exchange

[Marsh Ray <[e-mail]>]

On 10/05/2011 08:49 PM, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> "Dan Harkins"<[e-mail]>  writes:
>
>>   TLS-PSK: resistance to dictionary attack
>>   TLS-SRP: elliptic curve support, divorcing domain parameter set from
>>      the password
>
> So it's a proposal that adds a few obscure geeky features to two existing
> mechanisms

Almost everything in crypto-land starts out obscure and geeky to even 
your average geek.

> that vendors have already decided not to adopt (wrongly, in my
> opinion, but that doesn't change the lack of adoption).  Why would they
> suddenly rush to support this one if they've ignored the other two (and a
> string of earlier drafts along the same lines)?

That's not a particularly strong argument against this one though.

You never know when vendors will have to change their minds, often in a 
hurry. When they do, it's better if there's something in place ahead of 
time IMHO.

> (As a more general comment, this draft should be, if anything, an Experimental
> and not a Standards-Track, given its context).
>
>> I'm curious why you are not asking the authors of the SEED, Camellia, and
>> Clefia drafts what those drafts give us that the AES ciphersuites don't
>> already do.

I think a lot of people have been asking that. Probably more would ask 
it out loud on the list if they didn't feel it would be unnecessarily 
redundant and confrontational.

> Those three are fashion-statement RFCs whose reasons for existence have little
> (if anything) to do with security.

They're also less new protocol and more of a code point assignment for 
an existing spec. Perhaps in some cases there will even be a little 
interoperating usage to justify it.

The above notwithstanding, I have to say my initial reaction is also a 
bit skeptical of the utility of this thing.

- Marsh