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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 03 February 2017 18:28 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 E773C1294B5 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:28:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 JBgl9_pJJaMt for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:28:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACAD21293FB for <Cfrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:28:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5F33BE56 for <Cfrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 18:28:16 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8N9AEU86mESd for <Cfrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 18:28:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.75] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 02AA4BE55 for <Cfrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 18:28:14 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1486146495; bh=m2X0oYwKqe/YcBsZFs6iln2vbqujMUb5RjMVB7XsTeE=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ReasdSS4WerrCySQqwBg1av/ubGk1BifhG80grRdwzZN0QEOnObUcaXsLa0Y5tBRZ 8J9k6CWfPvMiZjHDJHcYa5E9kv89iYij+VsON0GjUdMIucih1vvPHpX1Ma9PE8Avh2 hn/e0zjDOinv7PeYGEBcy1jf3cNFjwNEYZEZHddc=
To: "cfrg@irtf.org" <Cfrg@irtf.org>
References: <666efaf7-b660-e20b-8a8a-8949a64e9bed@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <52b3065b-bb20-9b2b-30da-78b09aace9cb@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 18:28:14 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <666efaf7-b660-e20b-8a8a-8949a64e9bed@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms020108080300050803000304"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/DEXSsJQ62_jy3E46b0MRGh-QNKM>
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: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 18:28:21 -0000

Thanks all,

My reading of that thread leads me to conclude there there's consensus
to not verify the erratum on the basis that the threat isn't that
significant and a backwards incompatible change as would be required is
not justified. However, if HMAC were to be updated in a manner that
didn't require backwards compatibility then one would likely consider
this. Hence I've marked this as "hold for document update"

Cheers,
S.

On 02/02/17 02:24, Stephen Farrell 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=&submit_date=&presentation=records
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>