SCRAM-SHA-1(-PLUS) + SCRAM-SHA-256(-PLUS) supports

[Neustradamus]

Dear @cypht-org team,

For more security, can you add supports of :

• SCRAM-SHA-1
• SCRAM-SHA-1-PLUS
• SCRAM-SHA-256
• SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS
• SCRAM-SHA-512
• SCRAM-SHA-512-PLUS
• SCRAM-SHA3-512
• SCRAM-SHA3-512-PLUS

You can add too:

• SCRAM-SHA-224
• SCRAM-SHA-224-PLUS
• SCRAM-SHA-384
• SCRAM-SHA-384-PLUS

A "big" list has been done in last link of this ticket.

---

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

-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
• RFC9266: Channel Bindings for TLS 1.3: https://tools.ietf.org/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

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

[jasonmunro]

I will look into this, thanks for the report.

[Neustradamus]

Dear @cypht-org team,

Have you progressed since 2019?

Thanks in advance.

[marclaporte]

Hi @Neustradamus

Thank you for the follow up. AFAIK, no progress has been made on this specific issue.

But we've just released a major version with tons of new features and fixes. And we've moved the project to an organization to facilitate work by various developers. Ref.: https://unencumberedbyfacts.com/2023/06/14/cypht-rebooted/

@josaphatim What do you think?

[Neustradamus]

@marclaporte: Excellent news!

Hope it will be possible to have more security in your other projects too :)

[marclaporte]

Hehe, yeah :-)

[marclaporte]

@Danelif please advise.

[Danelif]

I will look into this and give report

[Danelif]

@marclaporte I have read all the documentation provided above and in my opinion for cypht, SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS is suitable. Unfortunately, there is no much documentation apart from the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).
but I found this video interesting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20p4zP_pvQU&pp=ugMICgJmchABGAHKBSxwcm90ZWdlciB2b3MgbW90cyBkZSBwYXNzZSBzY3JhbSBwb3N0Z3Jlc3FsIA%3D%3D an scenario with PostgreSQL database.

[Neustradamus]

@Danelif: Yes, PostgreSQL supports SCRAM-SHA-256 and SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS and a lot of others projects/softs/libs/...
There is a list here: scram-sasl/info#1.

@marclaporte: I have tried to contact you in private by e-mail, by Twitter (public message because DM is not opened for you), can you reply me? Thanks in advance.

[marclaporte]

can you reply me

Done

[marclaporte]

@Danelif Do you feel comfortable to prepare a pull request?

[Danelif]

@marclaporte yes I do

[marclaporte]

ok, please proceed

[Neustradamus]

@marclaporte, @Danelif: Can you look SCRAM with Auth_SASL/Auth_SASL2?

• https://github.com/pear/Auth_SASL
• https://github.com/pear/Auth_SASL2

It will be nice to have before a new release...

[Danelif]

@Neustradamus okay let me take a look

[Danelif]

Adding SCRAM-256-PLUS PR @Neustradamus

[Neustradamus]

@Danelif: Nice, good job!

Can you add other SCRAM too?

[Danelif]

@Neustradamus alright

[Neustradamus]

@Danelif: Note that there are two connection possibilities by SCRAM, example for 256:

• SCRAM-SHA-256
• SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS

It will be perfect to have support of: SHA-1/SHA-256/SHA-512/SHA3-512.

Note: If you can add the -PLUS variant support into Auth_SASL/Auth_SASL2, it will be a big enhancement to have a full compatibility and will profit to several projects in the World.

[Danelif]

i just finished to include all SCRAM SHA in the code base

PR

[Danelif]

This PR has been merged so can i remove CRAM-MD5 (#1063) in cypht now ? @marclaporte @Neustradamus

[marclaporte]

Wait. Is there a use case that the more advanced mechanisms would not be used?

If system always uses more secure mechanisms, it should never fall back to CRAM-MD5

@kroky @Neustradamus

[marclaporte]

Say the mail server only supports plain and CRAM-MD5, it's surely better to use CRAM-MD5 instead of plain?

[Neustradamus]

At the same time of CRAM-MD5 removal, it is possible to remove LOGIN too.

The latest possibility for "old servers" is PLAIN with TLS.

[kroky]

I'd deprecate and use as a last resort for now. If big clients/servers haven't removed it yet, there might be a strong reason to. I understand the protocol is outdated and moved to a historic state but completely removing the authentication protocols might actually drop support for certain servers/users/use-cases.