Re: Closing on shared-key authentication

Don Schmidt wrote:
> 
> I am delighted to see the last two postings from Taher and Barb
> getting back to the point.  That is the utility of a TLS standard.  If
> after all we design something that is secure but does not meet
> customer requirements -- and so is not widely adopted -- then why
> bother?
> 
> Many (if not most) of the arguments against incorporating
> shared-secret auth in TLS (the transport vs app layer arguments) could
> apply equally to PK-based auth.
> 
> Many of the obvious interoperability benefits of incorporating a
> standard PK-based auth into TLS could equally apply to shared-secret
> auth.
> 
> The point here is not whether PK-based auth is more secure than
> shared-secret auth, or whether it provides non-repudiation, or ...

[ ... snip ... ]

- Password authentication weakens TLS.

- The first time someone cracks a password used in TLS authentication,
  it will erode public confidence in the security of TLS.

- We aren't just trying to solve a problem for next quarter, we're
  trying to generate a security standard for the Internet that will
  stand the test of time.  I don't think we should be guided by
  short-lived customer requirements.

- The only security reason for including password auth in TLS is that
  it gains stronger security by having access to strong crypto in the
  export case.  I don't think we should include features this major
  based solely on brain-damaged US export regulations that will
  hopefully soon change.

-- 
You should only break rules of style if you can    | Tom Weinstein
coherently explain what you gain by so doing.      | tomw@netscape.com