Re: [psg.com #460] IESG - Transport - Oakley - new proposal

[Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz%cmu.edu@localhost>]

On Monday, June 21, 2004 13:41:26 -0700 Chris Lonvick <clonvick%cisco.com@localhost> 
wrote:

> (1)
> [TRANSPORT] - revise section 6.5
>
>    Two REQUIRED key exchange method has been defined:

"have"
Otherwise OK.



> (2)
> [TRANSPORT] - revise section 8.1

OK.



> (3)
> [TRANSPORT] - add section 8.2

OK.


> (4)
> [NUMBERS] - Add a line in the current Section 4.3

OK.


> (5)
> [ARCHITECTURE]  modify 9.2.7 (Security Considerations for TRANS)
> Section 9.2.7 discusses Forward Secrecy and PFS, and it specifically
> names diffie-hellman-group1-sha1. I'd like to reference both defined
> key exchange methods in this section.
>
> Current extract from 9.2.7
>    SSH sessions resulting from a key exchange using
>    diffie-hellman-group1-sha1 are secure even if private keying/
>    authentication material is later revealed, but not if the session
>    keys are revealed.  So, given this definition of PFS, SSH does have
>    PFS.
> Change to:
>    SSH sessions resulting from a key exchange using
>    diffie-hellman-group1-sha1 and diffie-hellman-group14-sha1
>    are secure even if private keying/
>    authentication material is later revealed, but not if the session
>    keys are revealed.  So, given this definition of PFS, SSH does have
>    PFS.

I guess this is OK, but I would still rather refer to TRANS section 8 in 
general, rather than to only the specific methods we happen to define.

 SSH sessions resulting from a key exchange using the diffie-hellman
 method described in [TRANS] Section 8 (including
 diffie-hellman-group1-sha1 and diffie-hellman-group14-sha1) are
 secure even if private keying/authentication material is later
 revealed, but not if the session keys are revealed.  So, given this
 definition of PFS, SSH does have PFS.



> (6)
> [ARCHITECTURE]  new section 9.2.8 (Security Considerations for TRANS)
> A new section 9.2.8 will be needed to discuss the ordering of key
> exchange method proposals.

I guess that text looks OK to me.  I've sort of become indifferent on this; 
I won't object strongly if people don't want to add this sort of text.

-- Jeff