Re: [vwrap] authentication : remove reference to MD5

[Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>]

actually. that does bring up a good point. LL _could_ just invalidate
everyone's password and make them go through password reset.

i agree, patnad, i would do it too, but it may be difficult to
convince everyone to do it, and i'm not sure it's the kind of thing a
standards organization should require of one of it's implementers.

just my $0.02, but yeah, i'll let the lindens speak for themselves.
--
meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]



On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Patnad Babii <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I think if someday LL ask me to change my password because they made their
> security system better i would really not mind. So typing a password take 1
> minute for changing it.
>
> Same for all opensim grid if they someday ask me to change my password
> because they enforced security i'd be more than happy to provide them with a
> new one.
>
> I don't think people will leave SL just because you "forced" them to change
> a password honestly.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Meadhbh Hamrick" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 2:22 PM
> To: "Peter Saint-Andre" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [vwrap] authentication : remove reference to MD5
>
>> we need clarification about how much of the second life legacy
>> protocol will be used in VWRAP.
>>
>> for instance. second life stores the MD5 hash of user passwords in the
>> user database and uses it to authenticate users when logging in.
>>
>> but MD5 has some significant problems which were exacerbated several
>> years ago when there was a security breach of linden's servers.
>>
>> so if we simply said "we're going to ditch MD5 in favor of SHA256"
>> there would be a problem with reverse compatibility of the
>> authentication data. this is because you can't generate the pre-image
>> from an MD5 MIC and then use it to generate a SHA256 MIC. (or you
>> can't do that in a way that insures that your MD5 pre image is the
>> same as the password.)
>>
>> so in other words, there is an action we could take in this group that
>> COULD make it very difficult for linden and presumably existing
>> OpenSim instances to use the authentication protocol.
>>
>> so the question is, to which degree do we add an engineering burden to
>> existing implementations that would like to adopt this group's output?
>> the question of the two string identifier is a good one. linden could
>> probably make systems that adhere to all sorts of different changes.
>> but to what degree to we make it easy for existing implementers vs.
>> the desires of people who have yet to build and implementation?
>>
>> -cheers
>> -meadhbh
>>
>>
>> --
>> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
>> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/6/10 8:19 AM, Meadhbh Hamrick wrote:
>>>>
>>>> okay.
>>>>
>>>> if we're going to remove VWRAP from all current implementations,
>>>
>>> What does that mean? I thought we were trying to build VWRAP into
>>> implementations, not rip it out. :)
>>>
>>>> i
>>>> vote we remove MD5 from the auth spec and replace it with a MIC with
>>>> better security properties, like SHA224 or SHA256.
>>>
>>> +1 to more secure authentication.
>>>
>>> My quick reading of the authentication draft led me to think that it
>>> needed a thorough review, but unfortunately I haven't had time to do
>>> that yet.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter Saint-Andre
>>> https://stpeter.im/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> vwrap mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> vwrap mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>