4 ms·
>The trouble with that is, nobody knows why we would want to add Dragonfly to TLS. TLS already has a PAKE option, SRP. [...] nobody uses TLS-SRP. No browser imp
by nullc 13y ago
>The trouble with that is, nobody knows why we would want to add Dragonfly to TLS. TLS already has a PAKE option, SRP. [...] nobody uses TLS-SRP. No browser implements it.
SRP exists under a cloud of patent uncertainty. A lot of people would like to use SRP (perhaps not with TLS, but for SSH— for example) but deployment has been deterred by patent concerns.
- tptacek 13y agoYou're not wrong about the concerns and uncertainty, but isn't SRP explicitly licensed for free use in Internet standards?
- nly 13y agoYes, and it was developed specifically because of the patent concerns surrounding PAKE.
- nullc 13y agoI was intentionally a bit vague there because I didn't want to lend additional credibility to those concerns, especially without researching the current status. Though IIRC only the limited form of SRP which doesn't provide bidirectional authentication (e.g. where you can't be MITMed even by a sever that knows your password or has stolen the server's 'hash' database) was covered under the royalty free grant. Implementation of the full protocol required a license from Stanford, https://ietf.org/ipr/31/ https://ietf.org/ipr/31/