IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cfrg] erratum for hmac what do we think...

"Paterson, Kenny" <Kenny.Paterson@rhul.ac.uk> Thu, 02 February 2017 14:07 UTC

Return-Path: <Kenny.Paterson@rhul.ac.uk>
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 50F0C129435 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 06:07:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.921
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=rhul.onmicrosoft.com
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 GLDy_wUWZEgZ for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 06:07:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EUR03-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr50048.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.5.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84EFA1293D9 for <Cfrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 06:07:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rhul.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-rhul-ac-uk; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=Gm3wbhXH9nwzDba/pIIUAh07S98e6UEqlJSu74350D8=; b=c76w3Dms+8tn3PV+n+4bMaXZpWUUMcInHeGBXykBfz4RbuboW2gq16FV7jIVIR6VU+bANGomunCzCNBqVksKaNfcdeyjDnWDFUrNVvD3209EDgCwgmw+coHlH10//bC97c5rfGjWUV1IDiyLxxHSuRuyrS930YYwwG0UM0rmGbo=
Received: from AM4PR0301MB1906.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.168.2.156) by AM4PR0301MB1905.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.168.2.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.860.13; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 14:07:50 +0000
Received: from AM4PR0301MB1906.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.2.156]) by AM4PR0301MB1906.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.2.156]) with mapi id 15.01.0860.027; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 14:07:50 +0000
From: "Paterson, Kenny" <Kenny.Paterson@rhul.ac.uk>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "cfrg@irtf.org" <Cfrg@irtf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Cfrg] erratum for hmac what do we think...
Thread-Index: AQHSfPuUfS5Ckg60qEyDX+TNu0OdxKFVwe6A
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 14:07:49 +0000
Message-ID: <D4B8ED5B.83EFC%kenny.paterson@rhul.ac.uk>
References: <666efaf7-b660-e20b-8a8a-8949a64e9bed@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <666efaf7-b660-e20b-8a8a-8949a64e9bed@cs.tcd.ie>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.1.161129
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Kenny.Paterson@rhul.ac.uk;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [134.219.227.30]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM4PR0301MB1905; 7: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
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:SKI; SCL:-1SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(7916002)(39450400003)(189002)(24454002)(199003)(38730400001)(77096006)(6486002)(36756003)(6436002)(5660300001)(6506006)(8936002)(81156014)(81166006)(16799955002)(8676002)(3660700001)(74482002)(99286003)(6116002)(3846002)(83506001)(2950100002)(3280700002)(25786008)(2906002)(42882006)(2501003)(6306002)(6512007)(102836003)(229853002)(4001350100001)(101416001)(305945005)(5001770100001)(97736004)(53936002)(189998001)(107886002)(122556002)(92566002)(86362001)(7736002)(2900100001)(50986999)(76176999)(68736007)(105586002)(106116001)(106356001)(66066001)(54356999); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM4PR0301MB1905; H:AM4PR0301MB1906.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e5a9a6a4-22fb-4d94-fe28-08d44b74df41
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001); SRVR:AM4PR0301MB1905;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM4PR0301MB1905AD0D70D3B1A8380386FDBC4C0@AM4PR0301MB1905.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(32856632585715);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6041248)(20161123560025)(20161123558025)(20161123564025)(20161123555025)(20161123562025)(6072148); SRVR:AM4PR0301MB1905; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:AM4PR0301MB1905;
x-forefront-prvs: 02065A9E77
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: rhul.ac.uk does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <746E5EC2B5C3A2428068C43B8E3CCFC7@eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: rhul.ac.uk
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 02 Feb 2017 14:07:49.7753 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 2efd699a-1922-4e69-b601-108008d28a2e
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM4PR0301MB1905
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/4omtChECLktNs_RlZQHEtl-46Z4>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] erratum for hmac what do we think...
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 14:07:55 -0000

Dear CFRG,

It'd be great if some HMAC experts could take a look at this proposed
erratum and give a view on it.

I looked quickly myself. It's an undesirable property, but I don't think
it's disastrous (yes, I could invent scenarios where one could come
unstuck because of it). It reminds me somewhat of the well-known, and
again somewhat unfortunate, fact that HMAC keys of different lengths can
end up being padded to form colliding keys.

Cheers,

Kenny 

On 02/02/2017 02:24, "Cfrg on behalf of Stephen Farrell"
<cfrg-bounces@irtf.org on behalf of stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:

>
>Hiya,
>
>There's an erratum posted for hmac [1] where I'd be
>interested in what folks here think.
>
>I'm unsure if this is a real problem, esp given that
>there are I guess a lot of implementations.
>
>And even if it were a real problem, I'm not sure we'd
>want that fix.
>
>Opinions welcome...
>
>Thanks,
>S.
>
>[1]
>https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=2104&eid=4809&rec_status=
>15&area_acronym=&errata_type=&wg_acronym=&submitter_name=&stream_name=&sub
>mit_date=&presentation=records
>

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status