Re: WireGuard Upstreaming Roadmap (November 2017)

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1274 bytes --]

On Thu 2017-12-07 07:37:59 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:22:04 +0100,
>   Stefan Tatschner <rumpelsepp@sevenbyte.org> wrote:
>>
>>Assuming I am right according the crypto agility, what's the upgrade
>>path if any of the involved cryptographic algorithms will be declared
>>insecure/broken? From my point of view wireguard tries to stay as
>>simple as possible and in general that's a good idea. I am just a bit
>>worrying about the possible lack of a clear upgrade path once
>>wireguard is mainlined.
>
> Having alternate crypto paths is also a weakness. There have been lots of 
> downgrade attacks against systems that incorporate agility.

this is clearly true, but it doesn't answer the question that Stefan was
asking.

As i understand it, for the current form of wireguard, the only way to
resolve the sort of problem described will be to create a "wireguard2"
which uses new, better primitives.  and it will probably need to listen
on a different port than "traditional wireguard" if you have any intent
on supporting both variants at the same time on the same host.

As upgrade paths go, this isn't too terrible, but it's not exactly
pretty either.  it'd be great to hear if folks have better ideas.

   --dkg

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]