Re: [Cfrg] Do we need a selection contest for AEAD?

Thomas Peyrin <> Fri, 19 June 2020 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E0AB3A0D35 for <>; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 10:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.837
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.837 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gPPyyZxavGLI for <>; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 10:47:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 012C53A0D31 for <>; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 10:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n70so7911874ota.5 for <>; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 10:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=955IVVUD/c2OAt9fT7D14//XB1K0qHvWiitbCmhFpVI=; b=su9U3OJ7R4zwYG8v7pUdgxqe46YyBTd9ZqmhYNN6w3Js0kDj9gaOUn9Ci1tNwURCvK I40gYDvY9cLXooK01OCNh3Zo4bLy9fMiOHJu/KAc2ETu4kL9WFJw4YXUQboUUGs08jrn 38pu6ZnkVKLJk7Mv6kLW7r/I7/t699Ds0f8MxMufVykx8S34Lco1E5YU/wlEY+pNeqTm nqs3YFhe83QIjfeOFb+yYI43CB+tmTCR8aJnWmOcQNp/4r25FipkTNUcj+lEqgkxqYWA HsazqvYD2sKxpPjHWju675aiPCNbSA66ip49/Qu/ftdOvjekpPWIXerGoqBp7czgYaFV yRsQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=955IVVUD/c2OAt9fT7D14//XB1K0qHvWiitbCmhFpVI=; b=VUuYkRONsNahzEEjX1XIudrlKrOCV8yRuDrsToKhCBRfCLor5Imz8HHIBNHQhud+8l EkpCdxu45e30U8JE8dWYPfINIJx3snDihOEfgPUbmvaWj0TI3DxV3ibh+oZzi9NW6d8M JtFPcmhH8HuAfw5uMmkl3aCk6TrqWNCRfQzFLZ2r0T24l9n4U6W+JIVbmKwGzWvqFJgy PtNQYgNbGa3pjjes9Dzni43mDOxd/XQv3sTKHP/kN6VE5SQ/q8DVx6AyXl5mBQX6FBYX IwRc0P1qwzF79aJLrHlL2fADoUzHQT2IAhSzuANJHcQJTbk4hXpVLhbtxfvggMqocG8J /ctA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Tw+YT3qgQ0VDCpRq8cWwb/TkDZ+8WrzwQzYOCQtjYdLNGF6iB VaAEUYTAK8o1nlViiJ3JTYYClCPEr7hppVVuq/A=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwtHs/qu1Ce1bV5nxzwRL6R6AQyRLGcd+RRHa3FTdbPjBV2Fj+FwN4AAYznjNAWFic59FIKacDgYjEUGENxquw=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:62da:: with SMTP id z26mr4223090otk.369.1592588821368; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 10:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Thomas Peyrin <>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2020 01:46:50 +0800
Message-ID: <>
To: "Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" <>
Cc: CFRG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f8946305a8737a39"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Do we need a selection contest for AEAD?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:47:04 -0000

Dear all,

I will be actually sending an RFC draft of Deoxys in the coming weeks like
I promised a few months ago (really sorry, with the COVID-19 confining with
young kids at home, I couldn't advance on it). It will contain misuse
resistant mode (with stronger guarantees than AES-GCM-SIV), leakage
resilient mode with different levels of resilience, the possiblity to
encrypt 2^124 bytes per key. We are currently analyzing the INT-RUP
security of it. All this for about the same efficiency as AES-GCM-SIV.



Le sam. 20 juin 2020 à 01:32, Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev <> a
écrit :

> Dear CFRG,
> The chairs would like to ask for opinions whether it seems reasonable to
> initiate an AEAD mode selection contest in CFRG, to review modern AEAD modes
> and recommend a mode (or several modes) for the IETF.
> We’ve recently had a CAESAR contest, and, of course, its results have to
> be taken into account very seriously. In addition to the properties that
> were primarily addressed during the CAESAR contest (like protection against
> side-channel attacks, authenticity/limited privacy damage in case of nonce
> misuse or release of unverified plaintexts, robustness in such scenarios as
> huge amounts of data), the following properties may be especially important
> for the usage of AEAD mechanisms in IETF protocols:
> 1) Leakage resistance.
> 2) Incremental AEAD.
> 3) Commitment AEAD (we've had a discussion in the list a while ago).
> 4) RUP-security (it was discussed in the CAESAR contest, but the finalists
> may have some issues with it, as far as I understand).
> 5) Ability to safely encrypt a larger maximum number of bytes per key
> (discussed in QUIC WG)..
> Does this look reasonable?
> Any thoughts about the possible aims of the contest?
> Any other requirements for the mode?
> Regards,
> Stanislav, Alexey, Nick
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list