IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dcrup] Review of draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-crypto-03

James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> Sat, 08 July 2017 20:15 UTC

Return-Path: <cloos@jhcloos.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 CA243131538 for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Jul 2017 13:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=jhcloos.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 EPqKbc_8MZR4 for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Jul 2017 13:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ore.jhcloos.com (ore.jhcloos.com [198.147.22.87]) (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 633CA12706D for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Jul 2017 13:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ore.jhcloos.com (Postfix, from userid 10) id 9B78E1E199; Sat, 8 Jul 2017 20:15:02 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jhcloos.com; s=ore17; t=1499544902; bh=4QycO4WQTFVCKP99uBXQN3+trUgTVbd3Q44ioYl+CxY=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=qynkKiy9SYARdPegd0CnyrYWgAL25GTAdRdP0N9vrHiDalLRxgCuG2+RfGh7GKJ8i HGpZnj+yq+ShzU61S6HQUpT+NFX6fY9jzz13A/aebXexTre4+tiEtItw6E/6bNM8oz 8opMtMIse7OrjUre/SyDdldFUzBN1+Ne0x+1jQGlWszpuDO9vHrFbP4zpxauBM8Jkk a9oYDZeosxuh3jhVh87U5mTScXTy+WdLl8pmVsJrUl4529hyaY73E3ahAjl6MKCTxC k3kj3KocRk9R5wsusYXS2wRS/04D1DIkhEU7LsMRLD5nG2/nvUd1ILCiNMe8jM3u7Q kYnHqJkrsDGzg==
Received: by carbon.jhcloos.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 24B91107B7BE1; Sat, 8 Jul 2017 20:14:28 +0000 (UTC)
From: James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>
To: dcrup@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <1C19FCE7-6AA3-4339-8BDE-F75C810505F2@kitterman.com> (Scott Kitterman's message of "Sat, 08 Jul 2017 10:00:47 +0000")
References: <CABkgnnW8nnoRGKoJQ4STAcT6CXdWFRCpz0h20hw+ksfw1x0PGg@mail.gmail.com> <6d4b76c9b42848f1b18c42ba22895993@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <CABcZeBM-qh+iW_+Br2URpdjHsLZ_L1xqZWUVirW-8-E7k4cvzg@mail.gmail.com> <564f297f17424f34b4ba1e118ab6f62c@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <D4D564D0-73C6-45CA-9962-33106229DE02@bluepopcorn.net> <220DB06A-E06D-4DAF-ADE6-7536B6E43630@callas.org> <aeee2c9019114d9789a2cd768f0b15e1@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <5F68DFD3-9F87-4CE1-87C2-AA08B0A62338@callas.org> <1C19FCE7-6AA3-4339-8BDE-F75C810505F2@kitterman.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux)
Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAABAAAAAQAgMAAABinRfyAAAACVBMVEX///8ZGXBQKKnCrDQ3 AAAAJElEQVQImWNgQAAXzwQg4SKASgAlXIEEiwsSIYBEcLaAtMEAADJnB+kKcKioAAAAAElFTkSu QmCC
Copyright: Copyright 2016 James Cloos
OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6; url=https://jhcloos.com/public_key/0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6.asc
OpenPGP-Fingerprint: E9E9 F828 61A4 6EA9 0F2B 63E7 997A 9F17 ED7D AEA6
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2017 16:14:28 -0400
Message-ID: <m3tw2my9cr.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org>
Lines: 10
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Hashcash: 1:28:170708:dcrup@ietf.org::Bw7CMN/5cl8WkwqG:009jmI0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dcrup/id9lshHOyjVV_ycwnVEk1Yqs1lM>
Subject: Re: [Dcrup] Review of draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-crypto-03
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, 08 Jul 2017 20:15:06 -0000

I haven't written about this because it seemed to be going ok, but I
have to agree that hashing 256-bit keys or signatures with a 256 bit
hash makes no sense.

If there is an attack which such hashing could avoid, that would be a
reason to do it.  Absent any such attack, hashing only adds fragility.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6

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