Re: [Hipsec] 5201bis -- Public key algorithms and key sizes

Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com> Fri, 09 April 2010 12:57 UTC

Return-Path: <rgm@htt-consult.com>
X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B4528C0D8 for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 05:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.274
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.274 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.325, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sgwz07vgJ-0r for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 05:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from klovia.htt-consult.com (klovia.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 900F028C0D0 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 05:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E76E368B5F for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 12:51:43 +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 dLq5nxBBuL7y for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 08:51:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from nc2400.htt-consult.com (h155.home.htt [208.83.67.155]) (Authenticated sender: rgm@htt-consult.com) by klovia.htt-consult.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5EEB068B5D for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 08:51:34 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4BBF2409.4060004@htt-consult.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 08:56:41 -0400
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100330 Fedora/3.0.4-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "hipsec@ietf.org" <hipsec@ietf.org>
References: <4BBE4397.1050600@htt-consult.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BBE4397.1050600@htt-consult.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] 5201bis -- Public key algorithms and key sizes
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/listinfo/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: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 12:57:05 -0000

On 04/08/2010 04:59 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> It is our plan to add ECC as a PK algorithm in 5201-bis. My proposal 
> is to use:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mcgrew-fundamental-ecc-02.txt
>
> All of the math in this ID is pre-94. The ID makes no IPR claims but 
> the implication is there of unemcumbered ECC. Problem is there is no 
> standard libraries for the ID. 

I would like the HIP developers to look this ID over to see what it 
would take to implement. I am not aware of any code in standard 
libraries; I have asked Dave McGrew about this.


> First thing, is naming :) What might we call curves from this draft to 
> use in 5201bis?
>
> Aside from that P-256, P-384, and P-512 are recommended sizes based on 
> RFC 4753. Do we include P-384?
>
> Host-ID does not enumerate key size, nor does 5201 recommend a MUST 
> key size for interoperability (at least it is not clearly stated). I 
> contend that we recommend 2048 for RSA/DSA and for anything stronger, 
> ECC.
>
> Any point for RSA 1024? It does not match strength with the other 
> crypto components.
>
> Diffie-Hellman is all over the place with key sizes:
>
> 384-bit group 1
> OAKLEY well-known group 1 2
> 1536-bit MODP group 3
> 3072-bit MODP group 4
> 6144-bit MODP group 5
> 8192-bit MODP group 6
>
> I am not finding reference of DH MODP group size to strength. I would 
> think we would limit MODP key size to match RSA/DSA. For ECDH again 
> 256, 384 (maybe depending on question above) and 512.
>
> Comments?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> Hipsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>