IETF Logo Mail Archive

[CFRG] draft-irtf-cfrg-aead-limits lacks EAX and OCB

Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> Sat, 31 July 2021 05:09 UTC

Return-Path: <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E61323A1432 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 22:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=fifthhorseman.net header.b=n88i4aVh; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fifthhorseman.net header.b=rUvf6tKB
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tyILKGcOTKmt for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 22:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [IPv6:2001:470:1:116::7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7C743A1433 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 22:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019; t=1627708146; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=JnAcePtjj2/+7+bOj9xbGVkCEPa1SbJK1k/uSvUee+E=; b=n88i4aVhXGn+lCV58R8g+36DFZzibnYgnGfG8VqCcQPDl5GBHfQah/4XGpR3oFnbza+ta YqQqsTu3GWPAeKaCg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019rsa; t=1627708146; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=JnAcePtjj2/+7+bOj9xbGVkCEPa1SbJK1k/uSvUee+E=; b=rUvf6tKBgXktN4icPPtl1BkC4OKfII9+cKS19w+boHHm9jX+v9Oxa1arOyMPImm3hldSV YTMHS5OFJsVTtldIKYgt07dWA1ClD8+fDYoZfqja57VhR5Pf/vY1Gb7rapefytqfJHgXOPe 1N+eRX0e5zCWCjj2gTPNYrk2lVtqtIcvAnGgHsVl4FsI7T7Rct5RKiByBOwKAPQw2ynvr9s EocoZJBoVs60yiUS21hCC0mBxCFE1M170fk5qxzqNn+xM7tKoFF4ztgnMAuh9gGIbrhVms8 CzuwwYe2J5hfE1pXwr7QVNhSLJ5UgEZma3VMCIY0pZye1ShK6sVmvTFlop9A==
Received: from fifthhorseman.net (lair.fifthhorseman.net [108.58.6.98]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E3F90F9A7; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 01:09:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6A101205EA; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 01:08:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
To: openpgp@ietf.org, cfrg@irtf.org
Autocrypt: addr=dkg@fifthhorseman.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mDMEX+i03xYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdACA4xvL/xI5dHedcnkfViyq84doe8zFRid9jW7CC9XBiI0QQf FgoAgwWCX+i03wWJBZ+mAAMLCQcJEOCS6zpcoQ26RxQAAAAAAB4AIHNhbHRAbm90YXRpb25zLnNl cXVvaWEtcGdwLm9yZ/tr8E9NA10HvcAVlSxnox6z62KXCInWjZaiBIlgX6O5AxUKCAKbAQIeARYh BMKfigwB81402BaqXOCS6zpcoQ26AADZHQD/Zx9nc3N2kj13AUsKMr/7zekBtgfSIGB3hRCU74Su G44A/34Yp6IAkndewLxb1WdRSokycnaCVyrk0nb4imeAYyoPtBc8ZGtnQGZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4u bmV0PojRBBMWCgCDBYJf6LTfBYkFn6YAAwsJBwkQ4JLrOlyhDbpHFAAAAAAAHgAgc2FsdEBub3Rh dGlvbnMuc2VxdW9pYS1wZ3Aub3JnL0Gwxvypz2tu1IPG+yu1zPjkiZwpscsitwrVvzN3bbADFQoI ApsBAh4BFiEEwp+KDAHzXjTYFqpc4JLrOlyhDboAAPkXAP0Z29z7jW+YzLzPTQML4EQLMbkHOfU4 +s+ki81Czt0WqgD/SJ8RyrqDCtEP8+E4ZSR01ysKqh+MUAsTaJlzZjehiQ24MwRf6LTfFgkrBgEE AdpHDwEBB0DkKHOW2kmqfAK461+acQ49gc2Z6VoXMChRqobGP0ubb4kBiAQYFgoBOgWCX+i03wWJ BZ+mAAkQ4JLrOlyhDbpHFAAAAAAAHgAgc2FsdEBub3RhdGlvbnMuc2VxdW9pYS1wZ3Aub3Jnfvo+ nHoxDwaLaJD8XZuXiaqBNZtIGXIypF1udBBRoc0CmwICHgG+oAQZFgoAbwWCX+i03wkQPp1xc3He VlxHFAAAAAAAHgAgc2FsdEBub3RhdGlvbnMuc2VxdW9pYS1wZ3Aub3JnaheiqE7Pfi3Atb3GGTw+ jFcBGOaobgzEJrhEuFpXREEWIQQttUkcnfDcj0MoY88+nXFzcd5WXAAAvrsBAIJ5sBg8Udocv25N stN/zWOiYpnjjvOjVMLH4fV3pWE1AP9T6hzHz7hRnAA8d01vqoxOlQ3O6cb/kFYAjqx3oMXSBhYh BMKfigwB81402BaqXOCS6zpcoQ26AADX7gD/b83VObe14xrNP8xcltRrBZF5OE1rQSPkMNy+eWpk eCwA/1hxiS8ZxL5/elNjXiWuHXEvUGnRoVj745Vl48sZPVYMuDgEX+i03xIKKwYBBAGXVQEFAQEH QIGex1WZbH6xhUBve5mblScGYU+Y8QJOomXH+rr5tMsMAwEICYjJBBgWCgB7BYJf6LTfBYkFn6YA CRDgkus6XKENukcUAAAAAAAeACBzYWx0QG5vdGF0aW9ucy5zZXF1b2lhLXBncC5vcmcEAx9vTD3b J0SXkhvcRcCr6uIDJwic3KFKxkH1m4QW0QKbDAIeARYhBMKfigwB81402BaqXOCS6zpcoQ26AAAX mwD8CWmukxwskU82RZLMk5fm1wCgMB5z8dA50KLw3rgsCykBAKg1w/Y7XpBS3SlXEegIg1K1e6dR fRxL7Z37WZXoH8AH
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 01:08:14 -0400
Message-ID: <87r1fful35.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/3T8A0r2zFsyt2YK_AGB1gna2ZWo>
Subject: [CFRG] draft-irtf-cfrg-aead-limits lacks EAX and OCB
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 05:09:17 -0000

Hi CFRG and OpenPGP folks--

In the CFRG meeting today, i noticed that the AEAD Limits draft does not
include a mention of EAX and OCB.

EAX and OCB are both candidates for inclusion in the forthcoming
cryptographic refresh of OpenPGP
(https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/blob/main/crypto-refresh.md).

I note that for OCB, RFC 7253 does include some suggestions of the kinds
of limits that are appropriate.

I'm not skilled enough with the kind of analysis that's happening in
these drafts to tell whether the guidance in 7253 translates into the
same sort of answers that draft-irtf-cfrg-aead-limits is trying to
systematize.

If it is, and CFRG folks find the limits in 7253 plausible, perhaps a
new section in the AEAD limits draft could import the relevant figures
and reference 7253?

I don't know of any comparable analysis for EAX, but if anyone can point
to some, i'd be interested in seeing EAX analyzed as well.

Sorry to not have the chops to analyze this myself, but i'm hoping that
someone in CFRG have enough capacity to at least look into it and tell
me why it doesn't match.

Regards,

        --dkg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email