RE: ISSUE-128: Strong / weak algorithms? [Techniques]

FIPS main audience is *crypto* implementors. It seems too low level and
thus doesn't seem to be the primary document to refer to.

We need to refer to some authoritative document(s) recommending TLS
suites to web site *security* administrators so they can decide which
ones to enable/disable when deploying TLS-enabled web sites. I don't
think administrators would get that much help digging into FIPS. 

NIST has such document, but as I mentioned in is for govermental use,
which excludes RC4, that as far as I know (?) is widely deployed due to
its high performance.

Luis

-----Original Message-----
From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com
Sent: den 17 oktober 2007 00:02
To: Anil.Saldhana@redhat.com; public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: ISSUE-128: Strong / weak algorithms? [Techniques]


It might be better in a W3C standard to reference the international
equivalents of FIPS 140.

The FIPS 140-1 equivalent is ISO/IEC FCD 19790 "Security requirements
for cryptographic modules".

Last I heard, FIPS 140-2 was the US input document to an NP recently
approved by CS1.  At that time it had not yet been assigned an ISO/IEC
number, but maybe that has changed.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Anil Saldhana
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 3:08 PM
To: Web Security Context Working Group WG
Subject: Re: ISSUE-128: Strong / weak algorithms? [Techniques]


FIPS 140-2 is the defining standard for cryptology (at least in the US).

Maybe we can use that as the frame of reference in the rec doc?

Doyle, Bill wrote:
> A number of standards bodies that we can point to that note 
> recommended strengths.
>  
> In the US the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 
> provides the clearing house for recommended practices. Systems could 
> follow Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) or FIPS 140-2
>  
> http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips140-2/fips1402.pdf
>
>     *From:* public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
>     [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Hallam-Baker,
>     Phillip
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, October 16, 2007 11:33 AM
>     *To:* Thomas Roessler
>     *Cc:* Luis Barriga; Web Security Context Working Group WG
>     *Subject:* RE: ISSUE-128: Strong / weak algorithms? [Techniques]
>
>     I would prefer not to make a recommendation here since it is not a
>     document that I would want to keep continuously updated.
>      
>     There is a strong industry consensus here and what we need to do
>     is to ensure that it is widely recognized as such and have a
>     mechanism to alert people when the consensus changes (e.g. the new
>     results on SHA-1).
>
>     *From:* Thomas Roessler [mailto:tlr@w3.org]
>     *Sent:* Tue 16/10/2007 4:08 AM
>     *To:* Hallam-Baker, Phillip
>     *Cc:* Luis Barriga; Web Security Context Working Group WG
>     *Subject:* Re: ISSUE-128: Strong / weak algorithms? [Techniques]
>
>     On 2007-10-15 20:26:04 -0700, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>     > I don't think we should write an exhaustive list olf strong
>     > ciphers. The most we should do is to note that there is a set of
>     > ciphers that the consensus recognizes as being acceptably strong
>     > which should be supported.
>
>     I'd rather we either reference some known-authoritative document
>     that is being maintained elsewhere (because I don't see us taking
on
>     that kind of document maintenance role for this particular
problem).
>
>     The second-best approach might be to say "these are known bad
[REF]
>     [REF] [REF], for the rest, please do your due diligence."
>
>     Regards,
>     --
>     Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
>

--
Anil Saldhana
Project/Technical Lead,
JBoss Security & Identity Management
JBoss, A division of Red Hat Inc.
http://labs.jboss.com/portal/jbosssecurity/

Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 11:07:00 UTC