RFC6331: Moving DIGEST-MD5 to Historic

[Neustradamus]

Dear @go-ldap team,

20 November 2008: CRAM-MD5 to Historic:

• https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sasl-crammd5-to-historic-00

29 June 2017: CRAM-MD5 to Historic:

• https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zeilenga-luis140219-crammd5-to-historic-00

July 2011: RFC6331: Moving DIGEST-MD5 to Historic:

• https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6331

August 2021: RFC9051: Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) - Version 4rev2:
"Replaced DIGEST-MD5 SASL mechanism with SCRAM-SHA-256. DIGEST-MD5 was deprecated."

• https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc9051

I add same about SCRAM-MD5.

There are now:

• July 2010: RFC5802: Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism (SCRAM): SASL and GSS-API Mechanisms: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5802 (SCRAM-SHA-1 and SCRAM-SHA-1-PLUS)
• July 2010: RFC5803: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Schema for Storing Salted: Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism (SCRAM) Secrets: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5803
• November 2015: RFC7677: SCRAM-SHA-256 and SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS: Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) Mechanisms: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7677

Soon:

• 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

[johnweldon]

Can you elaborate on what issue you are reporting? Based on your other tickets, I think you're asking "someone" to implement newer authentication mechanisms on the basis that DIGEST-MD5 is not considered secure by modern standards.

If so, can you clarify specifically what you're requesting in this issue, and how it differs from the other ticket you filed.

[james-d-elliott]

@Neustradamus you never responded to the above question.

[Neustradamus]

@johnweldon, @james-d-elliott: Sorry for the delay!

Yes, I request to add the new secure standards (SCRAM family) to replace the old unsecure DIGEST-MD5 :)