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

http://ia.cr/2013/382

might be relevant, theoretically, but I'm no expert...

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
  Original Message
From: Paterson, Kenny
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 9:08 AM
To: Stephen Farrell; cfrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] erratum for hmac what do we think...

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
>

_______________________________________________
Cfrg mailing list
Cfrg@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg