[Hipsec] Reference problem in 5201-bis wrt SECP160R1

Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com> Wed, 08 August 2012 13:24 UTC

Return-Path: <rgm@htt-consult.com>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C90421F84A5 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 06:24:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.174
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.174 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.175, BAYES_50=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JHFshh4rUoVS for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 06:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com (klovia.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.149]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A13321F848B for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 06:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3B5C62A6B for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 13:24:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at localhost
Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klovia.htt-consult.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ccX3cA5QKJ4g for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:24:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lx120e.htt-consult.com (nc4010.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.156]) (Authenticated sender: rgm@htt-consult.com) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8B11162A9B for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:24:22 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <50226886.8000106@htt-consult.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 09:24:22 -0400
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: hipsec@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Hipsec] Reference problem in 5201-bis wrt SECP160R1
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <hipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec>
List-Post: <mailto:hipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:24:55 -0000

For low security we have SECP160R1 from:

    [SECG]                      SECG, "Recommended Elliptic Curve Domain
                                Parameters", SEC 2 , 2000,
                                <http://www.secg.org/>.

I went there yesterday to look up some of the information on actual 
sizes and got to:

http://www.secg.org/download/aid-784/sec2-v2.pdf, published Jan 27, 2010.

And no SECP160R1, the smallest keysize now is SECP192R1 (sec 2.2.2).

So we have a reference problem here as well as giving a developer the 
parameter values needed to implement SECP160R1.

Corrective action options:

1) Directly supply the parameters for SECP160R1 in Appendix D and 
reference the version of secg they were pulled from.

2) Find a more stable source for SECP160R1 to reference.

3) Move to SECP192R1 (which I am leary of as ver 3.0 of secg could drop 
that!).

I vote for 1) and ask whoever has the older version of secg to forward 
the parameters for inclusion.

BTW, HIP DEX works a bit differently in that the keys generated from the 
ECDH exchange are only used in protecting HIP packets and a wrapped key 
exchange within HIP provides the keying material for session keys (eg 
ESP or 802.15.4 security).  So in DEX, using SECP160R1 may not be as 
much of a risk as in BEX, so I DO plan on providing the SECP160R1 
parameters in DEX.