Subject: [eap] Re: Issue 356: Ciphersuite Independence

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 18:42:37 -0700

The text of Issue 356 is given below.

Section 3.7 says the following:

"In order to guard against brute force attacks, EAP methods supporting key 
derivation
need to be capable of generating keying material with an appropriate
effective symmetric key strength.  In order to ensure that EAP key
generation is not the weakest link, it is RECOMMENDED that EAP methods
utilizing public key cryptography choose a public key that has a
cryptographic strength meeting the symmetric key strength requirement."

The text is accurate as far as it goes, but it occurs to me that this is not 
the complete story.  Even if the EAP keying material is of sufficient 
strength, attacks on the transient session keys might still be possible.  
For example in IKEv2, EAP is not used for key derivation, just 
authentication; key derivation is handled by IKEv2 (e.g. DH).  If IKEv2 does 
not negotiate adequate strength for the key derivation (e.g. 512-bit key for 
DH) the TSKs will be weak regardless of how strong the EAP keying material 
is, since the MSK is only used for authentication, not key derivation.  
Similarly in 802.16 the TSKs are generated purely by the Base Station.  If 
BS does not have a good random number generator, it would be possible to 
crack the TSKs without having to brute force the EAP keying material.  So in 
both the IKEv2 and 802.16 cases, strong EAP keying material is necessary, 
but not sufficient to ensure strong TSKs.

Given this, I am wondering what text is appropriate relating to "system 
level coordination" in Section 1.6.4.  I think we can say that the strength 
of the EAP keying material should not be less than the strength of the 
desired TSKs.  But I'm not clear what we can say about "coordination" beyond 
that.

Can someone suggest text?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 356: Ciphersuite Independence
Submitter name: Joe Salowey
Submitter email address: [email-masked]
Date Submitted: April 30, 2006
Reference: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/eap/msg04223.html
Document: KEYING-12
Comment type: 'E'ditorial
Priority: '2' May fix
Section: 1.6.4
Rationale/Explanation of issue:

Section 3.7 implies that there is a system level coordination between
the strength of the keys exported by the EAP method and the strength of
keys required by the lower layer.

This section should reference this and indicate that the coordination is
done outside of EAP.

_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap

Arhives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/eap

---

From: "Salowey, Joe" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 16:55:05 -0700

I think saying that 

"The strength of the exported key material should not be less than the
desired strength of the TSKs used in the lower layer."

May be sufficient, but perhaps we should add:

"The requirements of the lower layer TSK strength are not communicated
through EAP."

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 6:43 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [eap] Re: Issue 356: Ciphersuite Independence
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------