From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: dkg@fifthhorseman.net Received: from krantz.zx2c4.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 8d5aae21 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 22:10:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [162.247.75.118]) by krantz.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 6e464031 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 22:10:23 +0000 (UTC) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: Bruno Wolff III , Stefan Tatschner Subject: Re: WireGuard Upstreaming Roadmap (November 2017) In-Reply-To: <20171207133759.GA395@wolff.to> References: <20171111044854.GA7956@zx2c4.com> <20171207133759.GA395@wolff.to> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 16:57:58 -0500 Message-ID: <878tee2obd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Cc: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 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= =20 > 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 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEOCdgUepHf6PklTkyFJitxsGSMjcFAlopuWYACgkQFJitxsGS MjegJhAAlKalZEsFSWxDxYhasN66Ur8kCuXjJgwuccGxsJcWY81EwyFRIPGt6y+b uuVsA+vhGOif6Vp20bnoAMZSV5D7uLzf7/d82e+09pOM9++Q9mKl2xOlj4hCtyXP /BCPaIvsbc7LP4Oq2+2BE/0hJiOFAhlwlAsl6zIOnklbX+mq0m0zp7yx8LriKVB4 X6WCvvDHh2Jm+KEbfpvCFJe89P4krzG7SduisuqSZXA71gjMrGLjLZIi+UScH5mq BKnlRTAlUwW18vnwXwMMHu4usqchulF/d65ipkOX1pg98j7rbnxB2+jYHtfTVvNC h/t67HLCumYTl7daiFRvz/VlIPiz/mZ+urWaAKriD2yBt42R/K/adaviiOpgUgmg j8CzUdQNp2Up5mkCx3khPrJpd1Bsh4G7sr9G4jJvAAzXck8DKHMNs1p/6jr6wP+/ 9ZPAJUmaQHdoqk6Bfg/vj0mil2DD1+ONIqPjSFrCxnaGM1unmxypMvee0UWOE+G8 YpPegwpgqBojvtEjaIGZIKubM9SKq6CeqqCrRbSs8Sbfxf8YPl62+zV/BdrAixbi rO3mRC4rdtSnegzMCVwi9tYbQbi5WLNWOoZBvPsUtnOArxTMngskfHMIkO68nCrk 8p6iJilJ76/P/IhVaz1Se/fHEP0zsb12A+OanzLEQAzYuvXkf60= =hffh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--