Re: Security

[Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx>]

>>>>> "Frank" == Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

    Frank> Sam Hartman wrote:
 
    >> However for challenge/response mechanisms we can get mutual
    >> authentication and tie the mutual authentication to integrity
    >> protection and/or confidentiality.

    Frank> As far as DIGEST-MD5 was an attempt to offer these features
    Frank> folks here apparently decided to give up on it, because
    Frank> there was no big demand for these features, and
    Frank> interoperability was lousy.  Maybe this is a hen and egg
    Frank> problem, but whatever the DIGEST-MD5 problems might be,
    Frank> they're no bugs in CRAM-MD5.

And decided to pursue channel binding rather than security layers.
Personally I'm happy with either channel binding or security layers, but think one is required.

    >> I do believe that cram-md5's mechanisms for converting a
    >> password into a key are weaker than is current accepted
    >> security practice.

    Frank> Then propose something better than HMAC, 

My problem is not with HMAC, but with the lack of PBKDF2.  Note that I
am acting on my proposals by contributing to scram.