Hi

I too am in favour of Valery¹s option. The rational being, if an attacker
can recover the SKEYSEED using a QC, I would assume that they can then
inject traffic into the IKEv2 SA, examples being to use configuration
payload to manipulate routing, rekey with amended traffic selector etc..
Simply put I feel we need to protect both IPsec SAs and child IKEv2 SAs.

For users concerned against active attacks, the IKEv2 SA should rekey
directly after IKE_AUTH and the new child IKEv2 SA be used for configuration
payload. This should be called out in the draft, but shouldn¹t be mandatory.

cheers

From:  IPsec <[email protected]> on behalf of Russ Housley
<[email protected]>
Date:  Thursday, 8 December 2016 22:02
To:  "Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer)" <[email protected]>
Cc:  IETF IPsec <[email protected]>
Subject:  Re: [IPsec] Quantum Resistant IKEv2

>> o   Valery Smyslov gave a suggestion that we instead stir in the PPK into the
>> initial SK_d; as all keying material is generated based on that, this would
>> also mean that IPsec SAs and any child IKE SAs are also protected.  This also
>> means that an implementation would not need to remember the PPK after the
>> initial negotiation.  The only downside I can see is that we would have to be
>> a bit careful about when we update the SK_d (obviously, before we actually
>> use it).
>> To me, all three strike me as reasonable ideas (unless we decide that we will
>> need to protect the real identity data encrypted via the IKE SA; in that
>> case, Dan¹s idea doesn¹t protect that).  Can I get opinions as to which
>> strikes the group as the best?  Are there any fourth options that people
>> would want to put on the table?
>>  
>> I would like to see the preshared key used in a manner that protects the IKE
>> SA as well as the child SA.  I have a mild preference for the third
>> alternative over the first one.
>  
> Actually, in terms of what IPsec/IKE traffic is immune from recovery from an
> adversary with a Quantum Computer, the first and third options are identical.

I recognize that.

I would like to see the preshared key used in a manner that protects the IKE
SA as well as the child SA, and between the two alternatives that offer
that, I have a mild preference for the third alternative.

Russ


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

Reply via email to