[Swan-dev] new test failures
andrew.cagney at gmail.com
Wed Feb 13 19:28:18 UTC 2019
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 13:44, Paul Wouters <paul at nohats.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2019, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > It would be from more algorithms being added to defaults. But there's
> > another change I think needs to follow. Namely changing the way IKE
> > proposals are formatted. Namely remove the smart that suppresses
> > <integ>, so that what was:
> > <encrypt>-<prf>-<dh>
> > AES_CBC-HMAC_SHA1-DH31
> > AES_GCM_16-HMAC_SHA1-DH31
> That is really encrypt-integ-dh right?
> We don't specify/print the prf until now because we assume integ == prf
> except for AEAD.
Above is or IKE the code was printing the PRF because that was
slightly shorter than the equivalent INTEG.
(so yea, I see your point, IKE isn't exactly consistent)
> > becomes the longer:
> > <encrypts>-<prfs>-<integs>-<dhs>
> > AES_CBC-HMAC_SHA1-HMAC_SHA1_96-DH31
> > AES_GCM_16-HMAC_SHA1-NONE-DH31
> > thoughts?
> I'd prefer encr-integ-prf-dh maybe ? I don't know.
What ever it is, I think it needs to be possible for the output format
to be cut/pasted into a config file and just work. With the old
proposals and format it was possible.
So looking at the parser, officially, for IKE, it expected:
but, unofficially, it could also parse (I don't think this was documented?):
if we reverse things vis:
then proposals like:
all still work fine - prf can be painfully derived from integ, but:
would break; force aes_gcm-none-sha1, or require some heuristic to
figure out <integ> should be skipped.
> > I'll look at this. It wasn't expected. IKE proposals should prefer
> > 256 while ESP proposals should prefer 128.
More information about the Swan-dev