Re: [TLS] TLS-PWD vs. TLS-SRP
"Dan Harkins" <dharkins@lounge.org> Wed, 06 November 2013 22:29 UTC
Return-Path: <dharkins@lounge.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 BE1E721F9E45 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 14:29:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.103
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.162, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wOUN1pXRroJT for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 14:29:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from colo.trepanning.net (colo.trepanning.net [69.55.226.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A754721F9DAF for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 14:29:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from www.trepanning.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by colo.trepanning.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4936B10224008; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 14:29:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 31.133.163.31 (SquirrelMail authenticated user dharkins@lounge.org) by www.trepanning.net with HTTP; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 14:29:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <bf5dbb3dcab3910aebd859c1ae231363.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
In-Reply-To: <3B54E2EF-0E1C-4E1E-B5FD-D98236A53640@gmail.com>
References: <CAEKgtqmAvR3FoWqE8HxxTWSGrmzEGVKGih4k0+iGXDtodDaMFw@mail.gmail.com> <2fde1fc4aa651cb7bcb38749fb24fa25.squirrel@www.trepanning.net> <3B54E2EF-0E1C-4E1E-B5FD-D98236A53640@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 14:29:46 -0800
From: Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>
To: Fabrice <fabrice.gautier@gmail.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.14 [SVN]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS-PWD vs. TLS-SRP
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 22:29:50 -0000
On Wed, November 6, 2013 1:43 pm, Fabrice wrote: >> On Nov 6, 2013, at 13:02, "Dan Harkins" <dharkins@lounge.org> wrote: >> >> >> Hi Shin, >> >>> On Wed, November 6, 2013 12:15 pm, SeongHan Shin wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> The TLS WG is about to issue a LC for tls-pwd. >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-pwd-01 >>> >>> Is there any advantages of tls-pwd over tls-srp? >> >> TLS-srp binds the password to a particular finite cyclic group >> and the user must use that group for the life of the password. > > Isn't that required for every protocol that only stores a verifier on the > server, rather than a password equivalent? > > My understanding of TLS-PWD is that the server need to store a password > equivalent (called the "base" in the TLS-PWD drafts), and as such does not > have some of the desirable properties of SRP (or AugPAKE) related to > server compromises. Your understanding is correct. There are drawbacks with the "desirable properties" of both TLS-srp and TLS-pwd. Now you have a choice based on what you value more. Dan.
- [TLS] TLS-PWD vs. TLS-SRP SeongHan Shin
- Re: [TLS] TLS-PWD vs. TLS-SRP Dan Harkins
- Re: [TLS] TLS-PWD vs. TLS-SRP SeongHan Shin
- Re: [TLS] TLS-PWD vs. TLS-SRP Fabrice
- Re: [TLS] TLS-PWD vs. TLS-SRP Dan Harkins
- Re: [TLS] TLS-PWD vs. TLS-SRP Dan Harkins
- Re: [TLS] TLS-PWD vs. TLS-SRP SeongHan Shin
- Re: [TLS] TLS-PWD vs. TLS-SRP SeongHan Shin
- Re: [TLS] TLS-PWD vs. TLS-SRP SeongHan Shin