Re: [DNSOP] [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies-04
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 02 December 2020 21:17 UTC
Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E4063A1AD8 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:17:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 qifhAP5_fpbp for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:17:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22f.google.com (mail-lj1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EF543A17F0 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:16:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id q8so20652ljc.12 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 13:16:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0YlVylj4WOzBuA3hkTomKw3Otae8/7qH9ANg8s2VXJs=; b=fBoIkKqGYI9rpv6injVqS9Do+Sfscq1XHulgU2VaGwmzvBvnW9RIFuoiJlXu39gWcP k0utXtcSdiQOHsNGvIUF/yE453GTkJSGBJUGdjlFokvLe9AzR+y6d+0myTjwFCojngzY taoxgJxb6d2QlcDYZRWDaPtd5GgpRjvNzvagJEBnzo0LyCvTtal5aYHlJCMFursrqqia FbakM7wXcJqHkeo8sKs3Wt5NXuPIPCEJilFJCOd2d1zsUYbZQzPwl3qPKPw7tVRD52z1 r+9HDYJIuyamntIJkclNuwBWLF06f/B2v/D4wJiduw/fFeg8vrOGCZA2OJebLerNqxG2 X5LA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0YlVylj4WOzBuA3hkTomKw3Otae8/7qH9ANg8s2VXJs=; b=Wxb8s95PvmoH4yzxY82I8OY2kdtWVNCswHCPy18bqip/EPcU8zUEK7Zxl6sqnoNfQ1 dF3Rt1eKQWnucnmStAObsYIrWAa0VI6zsIkUPCex3MLUPqlMqVviTaa5nq54U9IpK9v2 tbCt21CKAhED/dzuClGDfpup3ExsleITSQiKtx7K/n2VMhM5PZcTetBjD75R8qa+lkcZ 1HM8jqH/Jyq0KFo2htQXwa48Ur2uG8masGB97jf69JQq8lNbOgl7ab2Hrvdn3G3Lbmf+ wKeXnNKhpeUXcZgWGhjxFVVMedKIYh3JMKMTNoy95svqh8m6FEgCzEvlH88HZAkEGR27 RIpw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532I2wXRTsimHQfJI3QAP6L5dBp5W6tfZ38blUBjao52V6DsKWjQ MRO/bvLXfxLiAFony7KNZmXFB6QO1HvoCs27M/E8TQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyGTsVwlxSvzkDp9pVcun4Czopexm1Oc8atypOhJkZpw6KaJXwJhYN63ILoeUekhBhVoDzGdkE6xbRJmfsQ3r8=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:988:: with SMTP id 130mr1986370ljj.409.1606943786406; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 13:16:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <160693121881.9413.5642470305677631145@ietfa.amsl.com> <17AFD6F5-11DA-41BC-8C37-E1893648041D@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <17AFD6F5-11DA-41BC-8C37-E1893648041D@isc.org>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 13:15:49 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPRn3aTBsApawvk_Ecyzdbi+SX9=b74y0_uhYx_Y8p-5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ondřej Surý <ondrej@isc.org>
Cc: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies.all@ietf.org, dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, secdir@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000090507b05b581c1b1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/5UV2vsFjdmNey6jQDhQW20KOwus>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies-04
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 21:18:03 -0000
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 10:32 AM Ondřej Surý <ondrej@isc.org> wrote: > Stephen, > > ad 1) the performance is crucial for DNS over UDP and PRF such as SipHash > is more efficient than HMACs. No, it wasn’t consulted with CFRG, and I > can’t speak for Willem, but I am confident enough to make the decision. > SipHash is widely used for hash tables virtually anywhere now. > Well hash tables are an application with somewhat different security properties than MACs, so I don't think this is dispositive. I concur with Stephen that CFRG should sign off on the use of SipHash here. With that said, how does SipHash compare to GMAC in terms of performance? -Ekr > ad 2) we need a value that’s synchronized well enough and monotonic. I > honestly don’t see any value in using 64-bit value here. Using unixtime has > a value in itself, it’s a well-known and there’s a little room for any > implementor to make a mistake in an implementation. The interoperability is > more important than the actual value of the counter. It’s write only > counter, nobody is going to interpret it after it has been generated, and > it’s wide enough to prevent brute forcing. > > Cheers, > Ondřej > -- > Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him) > > > On 2. 12. 2020, at 18:47, Stephen Farrell via Datatracker < > noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > > > > Reviewer: Stephen Farrell > > Review result: Has Issues > > > > I see two issues here worth checking: > > > > 1. I don't recall SipHash being used as a MAC in > > any IETF standard before. We normally use HMAC, > > even if truncated. Why make this change and was > > that checked with e.g. CFRG? (And the URL given > > in the reference gets me a 404.) > > > > 2. Is it really a good idea to use a 32 bit seconds > > since 1970-01-01 in 2020? I'd have thought that e.g. > > a timestamp in hours since then or seconds since > > some date in 2020 would be better. > > > > Here's a couple of nits too: > > - section 1: what's a "strong cookie"? > > - "gallimaufry" - cute! but not sure it'll help readers to learn that > word. > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > secdir mailing list > secdir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir > wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview >
- [DNSOP] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dns… Stephen Farrell via Datatracker
- Re: [DNSOP] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf… Ondřej Surý
- Re: [DNSOP] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [DNSOP] [secdir] Secdir last call review of d… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [DNSOP] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf… Willem Toorop
- Re: [DNSOP] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [DNSOP] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf… Willem Toorop
- Re: [DNSOP] [secdir] Secdir last call review of d… Ondřej Surý
- Re: [DNSOP] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf… Brian Dickson
- Re: [DNSOP] [Last-Call] Secdir last call review o… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [DNSOP] [Last-Call] Secdir last call review o… Willem Toorop
- Re: [DNSOP] [Last-Call] Secdir last call review o… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [DNSOP] [Last-Call] Secdir last call review o… Salz, Rich
- Re: [DNSOP] [Last-Call] Secdir last call review o… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [DNSOP] [secdir] Secdir last call review of d… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [DNSOP] [secdir] Secdir last call review of d… Ondřej Surý
- Re: [DNSOP] [secdir] Secdir last call review of d… Brian Dickson
- Re: [DNSOP] [Last-Call] [secdir] Secdir last call… Salz, Rich
- Re: [DNSOP] [Last-Call] [secdir] Secdir last call… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [DNSOP] [Last-Call] [secdir] Secdir last call… Salz, Rich
- Re: [DNSOP] [Last-Call] [secdir] Secdir last call… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [DNSOP] [secdir] Secdir last call review of d… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [DNSOP] [secdir] Secdir last call review of d… Stephen Farrell