Re: [TLS] Call for consensus to remove anonymous DH

Dave Garrett <davemgarrett@gmail.com> Wed, 16 September 2015 23:48 UTC

Return-Path: <davemgarrett@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29DF71A90C8 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 ozBQSsVxJc6v for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:48:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22a.google.com (mail-qk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C69F1A90B7 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:48:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qkfq186 with SMTP id q186so696546qkf.1 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=oSgmbMZFYdx9Kv7iqrKZo0bx5i/qMXqHe/uiyUx5eGI=; b=Sgw+1jH/iBaGW/GIgHXVomiCXmtguj3SaJXXjOdgDAnWI0HDEBbMGW46oXYE6YIuoi jWbbQKtQo4BVEO/Yv05zSjHLzyhnpnuV2u7KmBsXxdfzvN2zRYRFPyAVY1tcDyQEo4NX CeRwQkZ32KA3C9V44AACH78/uZIMu4AK1XkpGzGYfQCxW9KVqQ3FUl8jR6s/RXDMT+gL VcQwgRd9Xhvrd6IegfSiCx575eOECRpYbUxk4JefcremZvm1rKKJms0QqcTysWvrVQf9 MJkAyJeydFcLKW+Fv/vuEOFuu0UawG7ws9kAqf9WXv/muk7E6FxLWZCXQdEDSQwjhafs 1WKA==
X-Received: by 10.55.16.74 with SMTP id a71mr47029840qkh.65.1442447307842; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dave-laptop.localnet (pool-72-94-152-197.phlapa.fios.verizon.net. [72.94.152.197]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f107sm128700qge.23.2015.09.16.16.48.27 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dave Garrett <davemgarrett@gmail.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:25 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.32-74-generic-pae; KDE/4.4.5; i686; ; )
References: <CAOgPGoBT9C=pWebXShqxhbOsnqK+OZe=-n-SvZ_pH-dAtRaWXQ@mail.gmail.com> <201509161907.32297.davemgarrett@gmail.com> <20150916232333.GT13294@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20150916232333.GT13294@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201509161948.25855.davemgarrett@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/GUGEpzf3YkSkviJd4DHzqn-hJgA>
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Call for consensus to remove anonymous DH
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:48:30 -0000

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 07:23:34 pm Nico Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:07:31PM -0400, Dave Garrett wrote:
> > This appears to just be a miscommunication.
> 
> It is not.
> 
> > The current poll is to remove anon ciphers in favor of raw public
> > keys. We're not considering removing raw public keys, as far as I
> > know, and I think most of us would be against that.
> 
> Once more, with feeling.  I would oppose the current proposal if there
> was to be a follow-on proposal to remove raw public keys, which I
> wouldn't have even though plausible but for Brian's intimating that he'd
> be fine with removing raw public keys.  Otherwise I would be neutral as
> to removing anon ciphersuites.
> 
> I would also be neutral as to removing raw public keys if anon
> ciphersuites are to remain.
> 
> Whichever one is removed, I shall oppose the removal of the other.
> 
> I.e., these two features are interrelated.  It is difficult to consider
> the removal of one without considering the possible removal of the
> other.
> 
> I leave it at that.

Yes, I agree with this, and I'm saying that I think that we're all on the same page here. Brian made a point to explicitly not endorse raw keys, but looking back through the messages today, I don't see anyone actually propose removing them. Thus, I said this is likely to be a miscommunication. That's all.


Dave