IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [jose] JWE Flattened Serialization with AES*GCMKW Sealing

"Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com> Thu, 23 June 2016 08:10 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.com>
X-Original-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0D7D12D12B for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 01:10:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 COoYobhGSLPb for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 01:10:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp2.pacifier.net (smtp2.pacifier.net [64.255.237.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FFE012D107 for <jose@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 01:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hebrews (c-24-21-96-37.hsd1.or.comcast.net [24.21.96.37]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: schaad@nwlink.com) by smtp2.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C2922CA1B; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 01:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: 'Nathaniel McCallum' <npmccallum@redhat.com>, jose@ietf.org
References: <1466634823.6637.8.camel@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <1466634823.6637.8.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 01:10:29 -0700
Message-ID: <058201d1cd26$b556a1e0$2003e5a0$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQG/cgO4nN+cpf46Sy/ZPMN9ACyfWaAbaGvQ
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/B8k2u99uhmg7jU4QyBII-Ox-DaQ>
Subject: Re: [jose] JWE Flattened Serialization with AES*GCMKW Sealing
X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Javascript Object Signing and Encryption <jose.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/jose/>
List-Post: <mailto:jose@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 08:10:33 -0000

I got the wrong answer last time.  I should have thought a bit longer.

No there is no conflict.  The content encryption IV and tag are at the top level of the structure  The IV and tag for the key wrap algorithm are either protected or unprotected attributes and placed in those fields as is appropriate.

Jim


> -----Original Message-----
> From: jose [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nathaniel McCallum
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 3:34 PM
> To: jose@ietf.org
> Subject: [jose] JWE Flattened Serialization with AES*GCMKW Sealing
> 
> I've been working on a C implementation of JOSE:
> https://github.com/npmccallum/jose
> 
> I noticed that RFC 7518 Section 4.7 defines the AES*GCMKW algorithms for key
> encryption and defines some optional header parameters: iv and tag.  Am I
> wrong that this seems to collide with the iv and tag parameters when
> AES*GCMKW is used in the JWE Flattened Serialization?
> 
> Can someone help clarify this for me?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email