On 7/5/17 2:05 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-precis-7613bis-08: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-7613bis/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I agree with jsalowey's point about discouraging raw password comparison. Can > you do something about that?
In version -08 we added the following text: 8.2. Password/Passphrase Comparison In systems that conform to modern best practices for security, verification of passwords during authentication will not use the comparison defined in Section 4.2.3. Instead, because the system performs cryptographic calculations to verify the password, it will prepare the password as defined in Section 4.2.1 and enforce the rules as defined in Section 4.2.2 before performing the relevant calculations. > The use of "false positive" is confusing because positive can either mean > "accept" or "reject". I would use "false accept" or "false reject" or some > other clearer term That's a good suggestion - we'll incorporate that change in the post-IESG revision. Peter _______________________________________________ precis mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
