IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Do we need DH?

Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com> Fri, 02 January 2015 12:47 UTC

Return-Path: <hkario@redhat.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 DEAB51A1AD9 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 04:47:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.512
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 jIlX6K2Nt1mZ for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 04:46:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (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 668321A1AAF for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 04:46:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t02CkvkA003749 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 07:46:58 -0500
Received: from pintsize.usersys.redhat.com (vpn1-4-49.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.4.49]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t02CksBk007083 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 07:46:56 -0500
From: Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com>
To: tls@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 13:46:53 +0100
Message-ID: <2348107.Lj21YcAO1u@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.3 (Linux/3.17.4-200.fc20.x86_64; KDE/4.14.3; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <54A252EA.1010905@iki.fi>
References: <CACsn0cmD=YA4i889f--e_b-OahUVoYdKyQUaiUN--QKOmqn8uA@mail.gmail.com> <54A252EA.1010905@iki.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.26
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/vofyCFAiTIuGZy1hQs3hNu6Q0s0
Subject: Re: [TLS] Do we need 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: <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, 02 Jan 2015 12:47:01 -0000

On Tuesday 30 December 2014 09:23:22 Tapio Sokura wrote:
> With regards to all eggs being in the same basket, AES is also something
> that really should have a realistic alternative standardized and
> deployed _before_ (/if) AES is broken. Like SHA-3 is coming around the
> corner while SHA-2 is still well alive and kicking.


We do have Camellia ciphers defined, PFS AEAD included (RFC 6367).

-- 
Regards,
Hubert Kario

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email