Subject: [OPSAWG] draft-hmac-sha-256-128-usm-snmp-00

From: Johannes Merkle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 16:58:28 +0100

we have published a draft on a new authentication protocol for USM for SNMP.

Abstract

   This memo specifies a new optional HMAC-SHA-256-128 authentication
   protocol for the User-based Security Model (USM) for SNMPv3 defined
   in RFC 3414.

The new protocol is a straightforward adaptation of the protocols HMAC-MD5-96 and HMAC-SHA-96 from RFC 3414 to the
SHA-256 based HMAC with truncation to 128 bits. Comments and suggestions are welcome.

Is there any interest in adoption by the WG?

-- 
Johannes

---

From: Johannes Merkle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:00:26 +0100

stupid me, I forgot to include the link to the draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hmac-sha-256-128-usm-snmp-00.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hmac-sha-256-128-usm-snmp-00

Johannes

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:13:19 +0100

> SHA-256 based HMAC with truncation to 128 bits. Comments and suggestions are welcome.

To allocate an OID, I think you actually have to write a MIB module
defining a suitable OBJECT-IDENTITY. This is quite some boilerplate
work but provides a formal SMIv2 definition of the OID.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: David Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 15:34:35 -0500

> The new protocol is a straightforward adaptation of the protocols 
> HMAC-MD5-96 and HMAC-SHA-96 from RFC 3414 to the

Yes, I would like to see this adopted by the working group and I'm
willing to review documents. We implemented SHA-2 in almost exactly
the same way that this document suggests. We would almost certainly 
implement the standard version if the working group adopts it. 

-David Reid

---

From: Jon Saperia <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 15:46:47 -0500

I would be as well.
/jon
On Nov 8, 2013, at 3:34 PM, David Reid <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

---

From: David Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 17:14:08 -0500

> HMAC-MD5-96 and HMAC-SHA-96 from RFC 3414 to the SHA-256 based HMAC 
> with truncation to 128 bits. Comments and suggestions are welcome.

Would it be valuable to also add SHA-512?

We actually implemented all 4 bit lengths of SHA2. I think that's overkill.
But 512 might be valuable.

-David Reid

---

From: Johannes Merkle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 18:32:09 +0100

> But 512 might be valuable.

HMAC-SHA-256-128 already provides a very high level of security. So I'm not sure if a SHA-512-based HMAC is really needed.

The next thing I'm going to do is to write down the MIB spec. As soon as I find time for it...

-- 
Johannes

---

From: David Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:15:56 -0500

> HMAC-SHA-256-128 already provides a very high level of security. So 
> I'm not sure if a SHA-512-based HMAC is really needed.

That's fine with me. I have not specifically seen demand for 512, but
wasn't sure what the broader market would want.

> The next thing I'm going to do is to write down the MIB spec. As soon 

OK. I'll be happy to review it when it's ready.

-David Reid

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:10:27 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Reid" <[email-masked]>
To: "Johannes Merkle" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-hmac-sha-256-128-usm-snmp-00

> wasn't sure what the broader market would want.

SHA-384 is in Suite B, which is the argument I see advanced on the TLS
list for its inclusion in ciphersuites (and which is where I learn most
of my security:-(

Separately, I have seen it stated that SHA-512 is no better than
SHA-384.

Tom Petch

> > The next thing I'm going to do is to write down the MIB spec. As
soon
> > as I find time for it...