Hi,
On Aug 23, 2008, at 1:18 PM, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
Am 23.08.2008 um 11:04 schrieb Dirk Meyer:
SAS does not work for me when I use bots. It also reduces it to one
way removing the option of X.509 certificates which is something I
need.
I never said SAS should be the only way, we need multiple ways. I
suggest those:
* SAS with mnemonics
* Fingerprint verification
* CA, but no CA added in the client by default (so the user has to
trust the CA manually, for example useful in a company so you don't
have to verify every co-worker)
Exactly. For bots, I personally would create my own CA and tell those
pesky little devils just to trust certificates signed by that.
Profit!.
Having a 32-bit SAS encoded with Mnemonics (like already suggested
here) really sounds like a great idea.
Why not encode a key fingerprint with Mnemonics? Looks like the same
to the user.
Only taking 32 bit of the fingerprint and using Mnemonics is
insecure as this is easy to forge - we already discussed it here.
BTW: It was argued a lot that ESessions misses a cryptanalysis, but
if we are going to do extensions to TLS, we might need a
cryptanalysis for this stuff too. TLS is useless if we add a
verification method that is insecure.
Well, SAS and SRP are IETF (draft?) extensions. SRP has more than 10
years of field tests and debate (up to current SRP-6, I believe).
They are not "our" extensions. I would prefer not to have any "our"
extensions to TLS.
Mnemonic or base32 encoding of the 32bit challenge, that's just
cosmetics applied.
Best regards,
--
Pedro Melo
Blog: http://www.simplicidade.org/notes/
XMPP ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use XMPP!
