IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-tls-pwd

CodesInChaos <codesinchaos@gmail.com> Fri, 06 December 2013 11:14 UTC

Return-Path: <codesinchaos@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 E732B1AE33C for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 03:14:25 -0800 (PST)
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 sB7Jq_WUxlCl for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 03:14:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22d.google.com (mail-wg0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 607E41AE347 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 03:14:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id y10so491744wgg.24 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 03:14:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=eOXVipV4BacG3ANsUExjXlmWV/Hy/jdNiFFo8JRqgd8=; b=SpVoza2Tb59P/Wp6GbyQDqinLxcsohzlmS+OIYZxRR0zlUVoh91Q99ek2Vyjg4o8O6 eXX621ixWed0XwnHeVx84OkKqkIDkxmRLJFmNEsVEEcADU5Hcj5h3VeykVxslKvVWWq/ WTdtvSnxgWk4ivpU7wOBMC159RGFXoY3z7/iw7kpM9bhAFKGDahHKDuOUgU1veCRiDnO kiZ5mgpkXGjRWay4GT3MtCA8rcQV3r29BJKmpQdeaPNZxw9v+Vz3hAzWP3r7S73f8yhE imhDt7iMhdXaEJCxYkAccz+3bmeAnikv1WzXOtaLH7T0+fDf0k8cRDiXcVuFEGyUcD7c qXng==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.2.108 with SMTP id 12mr2605610wjt.64.1386328460138; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 03:14:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.61.15 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 03:14:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <6c129fd89a9e5953ba844e4e1d1e6e98.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
References: <3065D910-832C-47B6-9E0B-2F8DCD2657D2@cisco.com> <529C990D.3020608@gmail.com> <CACsn0cmtP_dF7N2op4DZUwR8t-fW30GmtdqQoteZ+9Y0oH3dUg@mail.gmail.com> <a4b1729af4966e99df1582943f02a0a8.squirrel@www.trepanning.net> <CACsn0cksrU2GErd6FkZPkXKXK4pSJhTbBoJ-0C-14jsM=UY2iQ@mail.gmail.com> <14e67efee74d2ec6d535f6750ed829db.squirrel@www.trepanning.net> <CACsn0c=PnB2CA8rpNtcOp6RRLNWHEPN-aN+AdWSF7FJM2wZOog@mail.gmail.com> <6d86c3be1741ed14992ec8662e0d32c7.squirrel@www.trepanning.net> <CADMpkcKTAARYK2id27T44eVyx6gF24mkt9nAkUZbSmwtEtd2gg@mail.gmail.com> <6c129fd89a9e5953ba844e4e1d1e6e98.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 12:14:20 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK9dnSyMcU80v8YSkr-X3OD7xzRqOEa0F649BX82TpkNpGOn_Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: CodesInChaos <codesinchaos@gmail.com>
To: Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>, "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [TLS] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-tls-pwd
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 11:14:26 -0000

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org> wrote:
>   No, that's not really true.  There is a difference between "your
> protocol has
> not been proven secure" and "your protocol has a security flaw". And while
> the former has been pointed out on this list and the CFRG list, the later
> has not.

How is using a password hash a hundred times weaker than md5crypt not
considered a security flaw?
Database compromises happen all the time, and forcing the server to
store a weakly hashed password
isn't acceptable IMO.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email