IETF Logo Mail Archive

aes128gcm: is the 1st example wrong?

"Manger, James" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com> Tue, 17 January 2017 02:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60C9A128BA2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:31:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.12
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=teamtelstra.onmicrosoft.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 VLoIgrJi5zbZ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:31:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72BCD129411 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:31:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cTJUs-0005aj-II for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 02:27:42 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 02:27:42 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cTJUs-0005aj-II@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>) id 1cTJUo-0005ZP-Bd for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 02:27:38 +0000
Received: from ipxcno.tcif.telstra.com.au ([203.35.82.208]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>) id 1cTJUg-0003Cn-KR for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 02:27:32 +0000
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,242,1477918800"; d="scan'208";a="17199559"
Received: from unknown (HELO ipcani.tcif.telstra.com.au) ([10.97.216.200]) by ipocni.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 17 Jan 2017 13:26:57 +1100
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5700,7163,8410"; a="270648572"
Received: from wsmsg3751.srv.dir.telstra.com ([172.49.40.172]) by ipcani.tcif.telstra.com.au with ESMTP; 17 Jan 2017 13:26:57 +1100
Received: from wsapp5871.srv.dir.telstra.com (10.75.139.13) by wsmsg3751.srv.dir.telstra.com (172.49.40.172) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.485.1; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:26:57 +1100
Received: from wsapp5585.srv.dir.telstra.com (10.75.3.67) by wsapp5871.srv.dir.telstra.com (10.75.139.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1236.3; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:26:56 +1100
Received: from AUS01-SY3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (10.172.101.126) by wsapp5585.srv.dir.telstra.com (10.75.3.67) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1236.3 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:26:57 +1100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=teamtelstra.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-team-telstra-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=aXe/CgvMZh6M8r0VA4hIIklFzu1UGu5nijg8TMNNjrk=; b=dJoCkVF9g72MRew75wT1iqyRcCpXep4AvDohrH71pB5JbMLAej/AMKZ2tldMxcB7RGVfR+njml5ztS2c8MNuYkmvxlaOiMJOd5vopDQPyNr3j51KpaZ5nwoCuPYO65FgXWtbOr3H6ykAKhTwCwujIAsHT8K0p19EzcWVJY2qNdE=
Received: from SYXPR01MB1615.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com (10.175.209.15) by SYXPR01MB1613.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com (10.175.209.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.845.12; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 02:26:54 +0000
Received: from SYXPR01MB1615.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com ([10.175.209.15]) by SYXPR01MB1615.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com ([10.175.209.15]) with mapi id 15.01.0845.013; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 02:26:54 +0000
From: "Manger, James" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: aes128gcm: is the 1st example wrong?
Thread-Index: AdJwaRiaLg2sNqShRRuJIHKdUn2T6g==
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 02:26:54 +0000
Message-ID: <SYXPR01MB1615D5823473E6A9B5F0C80DE57C0@SYXPR01MB1615.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-AU, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com;
x-originating-ip: [203.35.185.244]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 6f4b01b1-dd86-4246-efdb-08d43e804dca
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(22001);SRVR:SYXPR01MB1613;
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; SYXPR01MB1613; 7:2JiWqKK7Bw8x4jxscnKh48BFeVl0AxMOk04C16TJjgaxpUZsiLSpN6n3DyVpkTkJ8KJOb+DFiMT49CN9Q9GOaG0JL5BiCj97C8nHFvXkPLXtJAhVnnTnSKFHKjMQxyD2KZJntfrnHUjTvzSLnsKGsnufMkO4h1cTgJUe/s26E+xQcMcLVUIPrCYJH1XLNdI/CfDfzuHrz5WS7M5bK9W+o0+OUBhg1OPZB/MkH7qgGNV3DzVjMtmTc/jOffy1ezNDB5KEG0P9Xld4vrlszTIyCXJQBIN+uXVpFT3hsYDc83JNZ9e6k4F2PjUtwcNW6wCEJtR9umr5paFNXMMOy0rFPKAo7OdDgkJ8pRXUV21Nra+QA0d3V9plNPECggd1dzXiRsiDdGWXoftdNTJYl1+y0r53fLy/6/GmAfLnX06Se6ERvT7rrrdUr4CyuKjl1/QnuVd9NPbodgEHJE1q73v8fA==
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <SYXPR01MB16138E301161FEBD14B93540E57C0@SYXPR01MB1613.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(166708455590820);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001)(6041248)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(20161123562025)(20161123560025)(6072148)(6042181); SRVR:SYXPR01MB1613; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:SYXPR01MB1613;
x-forefront-prvs: 01901B3451
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(199003)(189002)(39060400001)(38730400001)(102836003)(6506006)(3846002)(55016002)(74316002)(6116002)(99286003)(9686003)(7736002)(77096006)(97736004)(2906002)(305945005)(66066001)(2501003)(3660700001)(3280700002)(92566002)(86362001)(5001770100001)(68736007)(6436002)(42882006)(2900100001)(25786008)(81156014)(54356999)(122556002)(107886002)(101416001)(7696004)(33656002)(105586002)(5660300001)(8676002)(189998001)(81166006)(106356001)(50986999)(8936002)(30001)(6306002)(19627235001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:SYXPR01MB1613; H:SYXPR01MB1615.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:0; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: team.telstra.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 17 Jan 2017 02:26:54.6922 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 49dfc6a3-5fb7-49f4-adea-c54e725bb854
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SYXPR01MB1613
X-OriginatorOrg: team.telstra.com
Received-SPF: none client-ip=203.35.82.208; envelope-from=James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com; helo=ipxcno.tcif.telstra.com.au
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, W3C_NW=0.5
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cTJUg-0003Cn-KR b64185c54324f12a62b2ece59d4483ca
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: aes128gcm: is the 1st example wrong?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/SYXPR01MB1615D5823473E6A9B5F0C80DE57C0@SYXPR01MB1615.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33298
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I cannot replicate the 1st example in draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/blob/master/draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding.md>. Can anyone confirm if it is correct? I can confirm that the 2nd example decrypts correctly.

(all quantities are base64url-encoding of the actual byte arrays)

IKM = B33e_VeFrOyIHwFTIfmesA
salt = sJvlboCWzB5jr8hI_q9cOQ

Draft gives:
PRK = MLAQxt_DHjM15cdlyU1oUnjq7TFlzToGTkdRmvvxVBw

But I get:
PRK = Mg9ErPx3DpJfkz72kj7Yvx369iqvd4Fmf7tOMTdXELo

--
James Manger

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status