IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cfrg] AES-SIV versus AES-GCM for Encrypted Key Data

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Tue, 17 May 2016 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
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 8908512D94B for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 May 2016 07:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 JII13JeImHRO for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 May 2016 07:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smetech.net (x-bolt-wan.smeinc.net [209.135.219.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE9B112D92B for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 17 May 2016 07:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (ronin.smetech.net [209.135.209.5]) by mail.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F184F24061; Tue, 17 May 2016 10:51:57 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from mail.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ssh6B7JowIQJ; Tue, 17 May 2016 10:34:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [10.189.52.232] (unknown [192.54.222.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70451F2401F; Tue, 17 May 2016 10:51:45 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_91B3461C-6E27-4115-B726-AF4FABE73C9E"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <573B24ED.70708@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 10:51:23 -0400
Message-Id: <00A212BA-E86D-4DF5-8987-FA1DF046B634@vigilsec.com>
References: <D35F6F11.93C3E%paul@marvell.com> <297966AA-C7E0-4C3B-BA56-8D61D7824D66@vigilsec.com> <D35F843A.93C91%paul@marvell.com> <89A44D23-D8A2-4A2F-A94E-6A362FC195C7@vigilsec.com> <573B24ED.70708@cs.tcd.ie>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/5LW9rr21-CsuUD-D9fA_kmDYp8Q>
Resent-From: alias-bounces@ietf.org
Resent-To: <>
Cc: IRTF CFRG <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] AES-SIV versus AES-GCM for Encrypted Key Data
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: Tue, 17 May 2016 14:51:59 -0000

Stephen:

> On 17/05/16 14:50, Russ Housley wrote:
>> I do not speak for NSA.  However, NSA only uses algorithms and modes
>> that are FIPS-approved.  AES-SIV does not meet that requirement.  If
>> that happens in the future, then the direction might change.
> 
> I don't speak for anyone:-)
> 
> I strongly believe that holding off from making improvements
> of the basis of FIPS approval/certification is a really bad
> idea. If a case can be made that the suggested change is less
> good or no better than the FIPS approved/certified thing,
> then that is a debate worth having, but waving the FIPS flag
> is not itself IMO a good counter argument to a claim that
> some change is an improvement.

Your comments are beyond the context of the question at the front of this thread.

This thread was about a particular set of IEEE 802.11 ballot comments:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/16/11-16-0596-01-00ai-more-counters.docx

> And I'd be disappointed if an international organisation of
> any kind did accept that kind of flag waving.

I guess that you are disappointed.  I understand that AES-SIV was selected over AES-GCM.

Russ

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email