SRP summary + opinions

From: Pete Gonzalez (gonzat_private)
Date: Fri Jan 01 1999 - 23:08:44 PST

  • Next message: Troy Davis: "Re: netscan.org - broadcast ICMP list"

    I'd like to thank the many people who responded to my previous posting
    regarding SRP; there were too many messages for me to reply personally
    to everyone.  I've compiled a brief digest of the messages I received,
    and I'll make it available to anyone who asks.  If someone doesn't
    want their message included the digest, please let me know.
    
    Here's an anonymous synopsis of the replies I received:
    
    - There is an SRP mailing list, and someone who uses SRP said the
      Stanford people have been very responsive and helpful.  Also, there's
      lots of info here:  http://jafar.stanford.edu/srp/doc.html
    
    - Although Stanford's implementation only speaks about being free for
      "non-commercial use", their web page says the SRP technology "is based
      entirely on arithmetic and hashing, both of which can be done with
      freely-available code and algorithms.  Thus, entirely free
      implementations of SRP can and have been written."
    
    - Someone said he was unable to find a BSD version.  Someone else said
      he got it working on BSD, but with a minor "protocol problem".
    
    - Someone said work is being done on SRP-secured IMAP/POP implmentations.
    
    - Several people said that although the password exchange is secure, the
      actual sessions are unencrypted.  If this is true, it's a serious
      deficiency of the protocols.  However, the Stanford web page says:
      "SRP exchanges a session key in the process of authentication.  This
      key can be used to encrypt the user's login session and protect it
      from both snooping and malicious active attack."
    
    - And, lastly, although the responses were generally enthusiastic, one
      person made this troublesome statement:  "The Stanford campus as a
      whole does not use SRP.  It has been considered and rejected as being
      largely untried (particularly within the crypto community) and having
      no obvious advantages over modern Kerberos in our environment.  The
      security claims made by the grad students who invented the protocol
      have come under considerable fire by the sci.crypt community, and the
      methods by which they have attempted to prove the superiority of their
      solution have left something to be desired."
    
    And now for my personal opinions...  :-)
    
    I've heard many people make statements which basically say "the general
    internet community is stupid and lazy for not adopting secure protocols,
    since many options exist and crypto technology is a tried&true theory."
    
    I'll state up front that I'm a novice when it comes to security, but
    it seems that none of the existing secure protocols is suitable as a
    "standard" for general acceptance.  Each fails to meet one of the
    following apparently obvious basic requirements:
    
    - The technology should be freely available, both for commercial use
      and for GPL products.  Preferably, not subject to US export
      regulations (e.g. it's developed outside of the US).
    - The protocols should provide secure client authentication, and
      optional server authentication, but without cumbersome keys or
      ticket servers to coordinate:  A user should be able to walk into
      an an aribtrary computer lab and login with a username and
      password.  Smartcards or floppy disks with key files should be
      strictly optional.  :-)
    - The system should support all the basic modern advances in
      cryptography; it should be safe against packet sniffing,
      man-in-the-middle attacks, replay attacks, dictionary attacks, etc.
      The server should never get enough information from the user to
      reconstruct the user's password.
    - It should be easy to retrofit existing protocols.  At the very
      least, there should be a standard implementation in
      portable library form.  Converting a TCP service should be
      possible with a simple wrapper (like what sslwrap does).
    
    It seems like all the technology is there, but it's just a matter
    of someone putting the pieces together, drafting some RFC's, and
    releasing a library.  SRP seems to come really close, and might
    actually be the sought solution if the claims on their web pages
    are true.  Unfortunately, that last person's statement casts
    some doubt on this.
    
    Perhaps there already exists some ideal solution, and I've just
    overlooked it?  If so, I would happily adopt it on my network and
    volunteer to help with retrofitting support for mail/www/telnet/ftp
    applications.  :-)
    
    
    Pete Gonzalez
    Jefferson Systems
    gonzat_private
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 14:26:58 PDT