Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost

Martin Rex <> Mon, 15 February 2010 18:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE99428C245 for <>; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:20:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.214
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.214 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Ebw6lAUVOzI for <>; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:20:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00B7128C266 for <>; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:20:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from by (26) with ESMTP id o1FILwoE018609 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:21:58 +0100 (MET)
From: Martin Rex <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:21:57 +0100
In-Reply-To: <> from "Basil Dolmatov" at Feb 13, 10 08:30:06 pm
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Scanner: Virus Scanner virwal07
X-SAP: out
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:20:39 -0000

Basil Dolmatov wrote:
> Martin Rex пишет:
> >
> > I'm still quite confused.
> >
> > All references to GOST signature algorithms of the kind [GOST3410]
> > ought to be fixed to say [GOST3410-2001].
> I think that can de done, despite the fact that there is no other 
> algorithm coded as GOST 3410, except GOST 34.10-2001.

Slightly OT:

There some more confusing aspect abouth GOST R34.10-xxxx

The math behind GOST bears some similarities with Diffie Helman (DH).

RFC-4357 describes "VKO GOST R34.10-94" and "VKO GOST R34.10-2001" 
under a section called "Key Derivation Algorithms", and defines
parameter sets for these algorithms.

To me, it looks like the GOST algorithms in RFC4357 would be better
described as "Key agreement" instead of "Key Derivation" algorithms
(consistent with the X.509v3 use of the terminology).
In detail, the key exchange algorithm for GOST in TLS seems to
significantly differ from DH key agreement.

What I don't understand is whether the deprecation applies to
GOST R34.10-1994 in general, or only to GOST R34.10-1994 as a
signature algorithm.

I am somewhat illiterate to crypto math, so I'm wondering whether
it is technicall possible to use a GOST R34.10-1994 key agreement
(ephemeral keys) in conjunction with GOST R34.10-2001 certs&signatures,
and if yes -- whether that is still permitted by russian authorities.