SCRAM-SHA-1 + SCRAM-SHA-256 + SCRAM-SHA-512 supports

[Neustradamus]

"When using the SASL SCRAM mechanism, the SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS variant SHOULD be preferred over the SCRAM-SHA-256 variant, and SHA-256 variants [RFC7677] SHOULD be preferred over SHA-1 variants [RFC5802]".

SCRAM-SHA-1(-PLUS):

• https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5802
• https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6120

SCRAM-SHA-256(-PLUS):

• https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7677 since 2015-11-02
• https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8600 since 2019-06-21: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/suJMmeMhuAOmGn_PJYgX5Vm8lNA

SCRAM-SHA-512(-PLUS):

• https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-melnikov-scram-sha-512

SCRAM-SHA3-512(-PLUS):

• https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-melnikov-scram-sha3-512

SCRAM BIS: Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism (SCRAM) SASL and GSS-API Mechanisms:

• https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-melnikov-scram-bis

-PLUS variants:

• RFC5056: On the Use of Channel Bindings to Secure Channels: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5056
• RFC5929: Channel Bindings for TLS: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5929
• Channel-Binding Types: https://www.iana.org/assignments/channel-binding-types/channel-binding-types.xhtml
• Channel Bindings for TLS 1.3: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9266

IMAP:

• RFC9051: Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) - Version 4rev2: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc9051

LDAP:

• RFC5803: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Schema for Storing Salted: Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism (SCRAM) Secrets: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5803

HTTP:

• RFC7804: Salted Challenge Response HTTP Authentication Mechanism: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7804

JMAP:

• RFC8621: The JSON Meta Application Protocol (JMAP) for Mail: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8621

2FA:

• Extensions to Salted Challenge Response (SCRAM) for 2 factor authentication: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-melnikov-scram-2fa

IANA:

• Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) Mechanisms: https://www.iana.org/assignments/sasl-mechanisms/sasl-mechanisms.xhtml

Linked to:

• State of Play scram-sasl/info#1

[dfish3r]

@dhawes can our OpenLDAP docker image support this?

[dhawes]

I've pushed an image that supports:

SCRAM-SHA-1
SCRAM-SHA-224
SCRAM-SHA-256
SCRAM-SHA-384
SCRAM-SHA-512

by using cyrus-sasl git master [1].

PLUS support will have to wait until Cyrus SASL supports it.

[1] cyrusimap/cyrus-sasl#552

[Neustradamus]

@dhawes: Please look:
https://github.com/cyrusimap/cyrus-sasl/commits/master

• Commits from Sep 2, 2019
• Commits from Sep 4, 2019

Thanks a lot to @aamelnikov and @ksmurchison too.

[Neustradamus]

@dhawes: Have you looked for -PLUS variants, already in master?

• https://cyrusimap.org/sasl/sasl/authentication_mechanisms.html

[dhawes]

I see a documentation update, but no commits. Can you reference a commit where this was added?

cyrusimap/cyrus-sasl#552 is still open as well.

[Neustradamus]

@dhawes: It was already done.

• https://github.com/cyrusimap/cyrus-sasl/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=-PLUS&type=

If you have problem, please inform.

I have requested to the author (@aamelnikov).

• https://cyrusimap.org/sasl/sasl/authentication_mechanisms.html

And there was a problem of documentation, and some links are not good yet:

• There is a problem in documentations, please update documentations cyrusimap/cyrus-sasl#549

[dhawes]

cyrusimap/cyrus-sasl#552 claims that adding -PLUS will take a lot more work. I don't see that work in any commits.

The search you link shows updates to support mech lists. It's unclear if those mechs are actually supported.

I tried the latest master to see if support exists, but I am unable to use any -PLUS variants. Have you attempted to use -PLUS with cyrus-sasl?

[dfish3r]

Added support for SCRAM in this PR:
#160

[Neustradamus]

@dfish3r: Thanks a lot :)

[Neustradamus]

@dfish3r: Little question, what is missing for -PLUS variants?

[dfish3r]

As @dhawes mentioned, PLUS doesn't appear to be supported yet in cyrus-sasl. Since that is our testing platform we won't proceed with any development until those features are available.

[dfish3r]

v2 merged into master. Please test these mechanisms when you have a chance.

[Neustradamus]

@dfish3r: Thanks for SCRAM-SHA-1/SCRAM-SHA-256/SCRAM-SHA-512.

Can I create a new ticket for -PLUS variants?

[dfish3r]

Thanks for SCRAM-SHA-1/SCRAM-SHA-256/SCRAM-SHA-512.

Did you test these?

Can I create a new ticket for -PLUS variants?

Sure.

[Neustradamus]

Not really :/

[Neustradamus]

dfish3r: Why not used BouncyCastle for TLS binding like Tigase?

• https://www.bouncycastle.org/
• https://docs.tigase.net/tigase-server/master-snapshot/Administration_Guide/webhelp/_bouncycastle_being_used_for_starttls.html

[dfish3r]

It will be awhile before I look at the -PLUS implementation. Please make comments on that issue.

[Neustradamus]

@dfish3r: Have you seen the RFC9266?

• Channel Bindings for TLS 1.3: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9266

Linked to:

• SCRAM-SHA-1-PLUS + SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS + SCRAM-SHA-512-PLUS supports #164
• RFC 9266: Channel Bindings for TLS 1.3 support #220