IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CFRG] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9180 (7790)

Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> Thu, 04 April 2024 03:00 UTC

Return-Path: <mt@lowentropy.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 67EEFC151091 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 20:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b="xmA5KVBs"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b="EmSjgH4e"
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NgiD-dTJ-f9n for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 20:00:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wfout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wfout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.144]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A34ECC14F6BF for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 20:00:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailfout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43A5C1C001B6; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 23:00:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap41 ([10.202.2.91]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 03 Apr 2024 23:00:42 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1712199641; x= 1712286041; bh=VjQmbwgXgadQpTNhFpRNsN3n/KyBD4xYaxwAvGJbZyY=; b=x mA5KVBsTU2SuXlmIyM8rolcCyFaAbN8XygdhtuEzCJmBNO6ki5LQ7H9li8Jq3KPd geuaCNavrn7LQcQRtkDPYkW9SSLXa8KoBzfZSDMLXvyV+S/dn9WCmGRcVIFdpAv0 9H3NXZ5F5vMoOgEEJ5mO0Hwd1/Bgd+OeUu0sNbFrKL6KIYAaqT5tbMmgmHuyQ89r W/YmeLkyOKU3FoVyeOiiBZrmSrV0JYPsrY1Ukz9KvoiIV+bD/BmGuh2Cv36946Ux tSj4iyP8V5ViHvaV+O39lvTk4An6sHX/VM1oB3iHeW3A++/d1vf9CEhsPwX3RUgQ hDCWAqYzwjaLJd0Clw2Zw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm2; t=1712199641; x=1712286041; bh=VjQmbwgXgadQpTNhFpRNsN3n/KyB D4xYaxwAvGJbZyY=; b=EmSjgH4ehZHeAS7JVTV3bu8bSdt0EFCTi4YCAQcniCpw ZtpHG+Xo4Aq+xb6EEGehkwYJoQTskVb7f1iEdvYMrToVfp/0K0U2mWraXeIwdLyf eY8JciiXBLnhhxHZ+TjAjLGosQksDB8PdazKS9KxGcSOWocuoBOFl9+RR/5tGVJ0 HkaQepWIe0fcK3o3GHCpCAiYvH4u+xksuWn/3GHD+rBxRpEeCRsidamUvgYBii18 AyIWDfC85Wa73fkEomDfinFOxpX2SsJS+/7ZKYO1At4GaVZHxUbEUi9t6BsjhsBe WrsE2vmPPdrMerE1AJ02mkhdllNbJORsH3wXpn6MUw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:2RcOZkkqW9UvEDpiyFYV0Sa7wzefmiPQ0bU1Pz-OEFi5b9_AdgyK8A> <xme:2RcOZj2zEFHi9eq4wEumuIerRilLY7cdPjhoxUEsNawid-2eERoYGEALx3LFkJoKP EURGZ9x1GPosxFye3U>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvledrudefjedgieeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvfevufgtsehttdertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfofgr rhhtihhnucfvhhhomhhsohhnfdcuoehmtheslhhofigvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeduleeufedthfegieeiieekkeejvdejgfevudffgeefvdffleev feekudeiieekleenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfh hrohhmpehmtheslhhofigvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvght
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:2RcOZip3wZ6ElDWy_ELYgZ1vLpYwHMFR5A0QsdRky-AgjmIm1f1MeQ> <xmx:2RcOZgnlCvVlRF_DOna4lRYtnGMa3fXmNGpklu1gXsVho9xVX_SJ1g> <xmx:2RcOZi1f-U1uK8W4qd3MM_H5j6NlfSItSSXkywPykabaYFDeOwlFVA> <xmx:2RcOZnuQEoN68Li4HYZUGBNwZIs-U1aurzGKPFC_1hZhefkRiYdMow> <xmx:2RcOZgBFjmC6hB2fMiyPfjjIyr9PgEtjdkhcPOZNTE97KnqfuK8U26E8>
Feedback-ID: ic129442d:Fastmail
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 7CF402340080; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 23:00:41 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-333-gbfea15422e-fm-20240327.001-gbfea1542
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <28b434a8-aec2-43f4-aeac-fd27e87887e5@betaapp.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <00773A27-1CE2-4A08-961F-C25D4C2FEA35@gmail.com>
References: <31cdc56a-db7e-4f06-9ac5-818aaa5fd9ea@betaapp.fastmail.com> <00773A27-1CE2-4A08-961F-C25D4C2FEA35@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 14:00:21 +1100
From: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
To: Neil Madden <neil.e.madden@gmail.com>
Cc: cfrg@irtf.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/KlaxZwQ3GcWoNHcD1yphj4ek5lE>
Subject: Re: [CFRG] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9180 (7790)
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.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://mailman.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 03:00:48 -0000


On Wed, Apr 3, 2024, at 23:13, Neil Madden wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2024, at 00:13, Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
>>> From my perspective, this erratum at least is not really errata-worthy.  It's great feedback on the document, but not strictly an error that needs correction. Oversights, omissions, and lost opportunities are to be expected.
>
> Are you quoting someone here, or is this your opinion? My own opinion 
> (as the erratum reporter) is that RFC 9180 seriously misrepresents the 
> security analysis it is supposed to be based on. At least in a JOSE 
> context, that misrepresentation could lead to serious security 
> vulnerabilities. 

Ugh, I don't know how that happened.  That was just my opinion.  I think we disagree still.  Not about whether the RFC should have made this property clear, but that an erratum is the right way to rectify the error.  I'd argue for a revision instead.  Deirdre made a different case for revision.  HPKE is young, but it might be time to update it.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email