IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Adoption call for Deprecating Obsolete Key Exchange Methods in TLS

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Sat, 31 July 2021 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 291043A0B55 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 09:11:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 flTlfyDhzBBD for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 09:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from straasha.imrryr.org (straasha.imrryr.org [100.2.39.101]) (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 1BE603A0B53 for <tls@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 09:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by straasha.imrryr.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id BE2E0C1F02; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 12:11:47 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 12:11:47 -0400
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
To: tls@ietf.org
Message-ID: <YQV2Q5S0iF5bHCms@straasha.imrryr.org>
Reply-To: tls@ietf.org
References: <CAOgPGoARpxr8-FzYJPRcup9XF-DRv875aAnuNZtoLPHM9-6j-w@mail.gmail.com> <4c0aafd3-fc8f-453a-a009-44ecc18dafd7@www.fastmail.com> <YQNLizvBb/xZyxkl@straasha.imrryr.org> <SY4PR01MB6251677071C9EDF4E5149616EEEC9@SY4PR01MB6251.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com> <YQRLcoKm/+lVGwfv@straasha.imrryr.org> <BL3PR11MB5682F0455884BAC742324DD8C1EC9@BL3PR11MB5682.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <YQRXGUZ/J7YZpzVv@straasha.imrryr.org> <SY4PR01MB6251775C9FD86B52BF71064CEEED9@SY4PR01MB6251.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <SY4PR01MB6251775C9FD86B52BF71064CEEED9@SY4PR01MB6251.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/X9NpIygyYtQI2uLBbrRLIespFMM>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Adoption call for Deprecating Obsolete Key Exchange Methods in TLS
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 16:11:54 -0000

On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 12:57:39PM +0000, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> writes:
> 
> >I strongly doubt there's a non-negligible server population with weak locally
> >generated groups.
> 
> Would you care to rephrase that so we can make sure you're saying what we
> think you're saying in order to disagree with it?

OK, who goes around bothering to actually generate custom DH parameters,
and with what tools, but then does not use a "strong" (Sophie Germain)
prime?

The only weakness I expect to encounter is a deprecated size of e.g.
512, 768 or 1024 bits.  Clients can easily detect that and enforce a
floor, but of course still don't get to negotiate a minimum.

Clients also don't get to negotiate the size of the server's RSA public
key, or as you mentioned various other ways for the server to not screw
up.

-- 
    Viktor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email