IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dcrup] Hey, crypto experts, what signing algorithm should we add

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Sat, 10 June 2017 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.com>
X-Original-To: dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06A2A129440 for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Jun 2017 11:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
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 4MB-IUq0b7Ds for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Jun 2017 11:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D87E1293E8 for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Jun 2017 11:59:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050096.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050096.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v5AIugwd023406; Sat, 10 Jun 2017 19:59:17 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=/vXE3JpqClFjIcPZjd/gTg4YgzHQ+5UizI2Azz6RUt4=; b=WlavdUQs+DxycjYk4SArf5hVM26k0iFwCtZjQXkqSDdtNlJaHwZEVxj6BN33SE0Kshru A7mvG5KvaZS4mYYoeGdY9qSFkwsJG2UgD/PLuzC7+452INUE/UF2QExV0qfsEFPQ9kcr 0bTCw6c5UMfte7wnhU8vtnC3jS3KUMlrJEYK5Flazq/xXKL9WafdXE4y3Z8MxfeOFc2D v7u+7P7YrQGJeyFfl+Nf5FqIRAYkoJzf8Jq/cKUQMas5KVPn7525db4ivD72C8jtQyub pLsHD3TmngI0eOMpCCwBptP0vbtKRbd70OwQEWpipwy0l/v63oPfoLq+O+VQ9O1UEBoy eQ==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint2 (a184-51-33-19.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [184.51.33.19] (may be forged)) by m0050096.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2b096b2pcy-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 10 Jun 2017 19:59:16 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id v5AItmFg018174; Sat, 10 Jun 2017 14:59:15 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.33]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2b0c3u18s4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 10 Jun 2017 14:59:15 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.103) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Sat, 10 Jun 2017 14:59:14 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Sat, 10 Jun 2017 14:59:12 -0400
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
CC: "dcrup@ietf.org" <dcrup@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Dcrup] Hey, crypto experts, what signing algorithm should we add
Thread-Index: AQHS4fkAIjgLds0hJ0GvmXIka/pM/KIecZyAgAAU24CAAAAwAIAAAOuAgAALHgCAAA/0AP//ysQg
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 18:59:10 +0000
Message-ID: <e867f8b5b99c4b498b80c6f851fca175@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
References: <20170610125545.14232.qmail@ary.lan> <CABkgnnUAJ6ix3pMB_Y792QOCqRSp2qA9oTSyUCbXP_=P5HRwGA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMAmjVaJCJwB-qZSpTX0aS-oi1mTduHCdLCM33dWj9P-Q@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1706101205270.16559@ary.qy> <CABcZeBM_P4C8xYDmMEbhAbs1tVPVWk6+UgT7vAcktSNtjVyXCg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1706101211200.16559@ary.qy> <CABcZeBN9r9XdsJVayMcUE03WJv74MOsefVdwb-CdchVbaKdT1Q@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1706101344460.16992@ary.qy>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1706101344460.16992@ary.qy>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.39.139]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-06-10_11:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1706100322
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-06-10_11:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1706100322
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dcrup/1M9IY7bAQX2A_n1sGftmY4nBjr0>
Subject: Re: [Dcrup] Hey, crypto experts, what signing algorithm should we add
X-BeenThere: dcrup@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DKIM Crypto Update <dcrup.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dcrup>, <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dcrup/>
List-Post: <mailto:dcrup@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcrup>, <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2017 18:59:20 -0000

> Somehow that blob includes the key length, since I can change the length
> and the signing and validation code is the same.

The encoding of an RSA key includes the key size.
 
> For the interface, it would be nice if the EC key were similarly self-describing.
> Or it may be moot since the key sizes are fixed.

Yes, the key sizes are fixed depending on the curve.  The encodings of curves are different and not self-describing.  If you see a string of bytes lying on the ground, you can't necessarily tell anything about the key -- if it is one, it's size, and which curve applies.  You need external state such as knowing the signing algorithm; that shouldn't be a problem.

Supporting Ed25519 will not come with zero code changes.  But minimal I think.

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status