SCRAM-SHA-1(-PLUS) + SCRAM-SHA-256(-PLUS) + SCRAM-SHA-512(-PLUS) + SCRAM-SHA3-512(-PLUS) supports

[Neustradamus]

Dear @nodemailer team,

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

"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

https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/hash-recommendations.html

-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
• RFC 9266: 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://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-kitten-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

[andris9]

Thank you. I have no plans to add SCRAM methods to the SMTP-server module. Honestly, I don't see any value in SCRAM in the context of TLS and as such, I do not have any time to spend on it. However, I am willing to accept pull requests if you would implement this functionality for the SMTP-server module yourself.

[Neustradamus]

@andris9: It is not only for SMTP, there are IMAP, POP3 too.
It is in RFC and it is the best security solution.

You can see here a list of products:

• State of Play scram-sasl/info#1

You are in the NOTHING list.

Do not forget to remove all old and unsecure mechanisms for security of users...

[andris9]

I'll gladly accept any pull requests that would add these mechanisms for SMTP, POP3 and IMAP.

[Neustradamus]

Badly, I will not do it, I have informed the @nodemailer team.
But for people: ticket closed = it is solved.
Currently nodemailer & co are not secure.
Time to reopen it.

[andris9]

The entire Nodemailer team is just me. This is why I don't have time to add all these additional features, and I'm expecting PRs from interested parties.

[Neustradamus]

@andris9: I see, I invite you to look to improve and secure the project...

Please to do not close an unsolved ticket.