[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Comments on CRACK



Hi Will,


<snip>

> I think you're underestimating the problems of the mode-cfg/xauth
> flaws which have been extensively discussed here and in the new
> drafts.

<snip>

What would those be?

I've heard...

1 - It encourages the use of weak pre-shared keys. - Perhaps, but this can
easily be fixed in XAUTH.  I would still like to get a concensus on this.

2 - It's too complicated to be secure... Please !

3 - Too much known plain text.  - All three proposals (XAUTH, CRACK, and ULA
have know plain text.

4 - It's too tightly bound to Cfg.  Cfg is a simple protocol.  Why invent a
new protocol when one already exist which meets your needs.

I see nothing here that warrants killing a protocol that is currently being
developped, and even deployed by a significant amount of vendors.

<snip>

> I don't think we're throwing out work.  All work done so far was
> experimental with the goal of reaching a good solution.  This
> experimentation has led to the discovery of various serious flaws in
> the mode-cfg/xauth solution.  These flaws are now being corrected in
> a solution which builds on what has been learned.
> 
> My feeling is that those who are complaining now are doing so for
> marketing reasons rather than doing the Right Thing for security and
> the protocol.

<snip>
Maybe you're not throwing out work, but many vendors would be... for no good
reason !

Once again, if a serious flaw were found in XAUTH and/or Cfg, that couldn't
be easily corrected, then I could see a reason to change paths.  However, at
this point, I don't see that.

Thanks,
Stephane.