Getting more details on this would be interesting for other reasons,
too, since there are new designs (e.g., IEEE 802.11r) which are using
HMAC-SHA256 -based KDF. Since the 802.11r KDF construction is also
claimed to be compliant to NIST recommendations, it is somewhat odd to
see EAP-GPSK take the
The problem with using a known key is that the function is invertable.
The KDF doesn't work unless you can't invert it.
See: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dang-nistkdf
Sounds like we should talk to our new A-D, since he's a coauthor on the
document from NIST.
--
t. charles clancy, ph.d. <>
On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 01:24:20PM -0400, Charles Clancy wrote:
> The problem is that the new KDF construction uses hashes instead of MACs.
Would use of CMAC with zero-key be acceptable to generate a hash
function for a KDF? Is there any publicly available document describing
why hashes should be
The problem is that the new KDF construction uses hashes instead of MACs.
--
t. charles clancy, ph.d. <> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <> www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy
On Sun, March 18, 2007 11:10 am, Jouni Malinen wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 11:22:15PM -0400, Charles Clancy wrote:
>
>> We've put together
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 11:22:15PM -0400, Charles Clancy wrote:
> We've put together an update to the GPSK draft to address the last call
> comments. Below is a list of the identified issues and their solutions.
> Issue: use of SHA-1 (Aboba)
> Resolution: switched AES ciphersuite to use SHA256
On Mon, March 12, 2007 8:01 pm, Narayanan, Vidya wrote:
>
> Well, I didn't really ask why not use EAP-TLS-PSK instead of GPSK :) I
> was asking if there could be an explanation of some design goal that
> really justified the use of GPSK over the other listed PSK-based
> methods.
The design goals f
Hi Charles,
Thanks for the quick update of the draft. A few comments inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Charles Clancy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 8:22 PM
> To: emu@ietf.org
> Subject: [Emu] EAP-GPSK update
>
> All,
>
> We&#
All,
We've put together an update to the GPSK draft to address the last call
comments. Below is a list of the identified issues and their solutions.
For a variety of issues we recommended no change with a brief
description. If more detail is desired, we can certainly discuss them
further o
