IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [jose] RSASSA-PSS signature

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Tue, 12 March 2013 19:49 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
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 3E65111E8118 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.482
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.482 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.494, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 8nX9rf-V63Se for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:49:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-f54.google.com (mail-oa0-f54.google.com [209.85.219.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA4911E814C for <jose@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:49:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id n12so261583oag.41 for <jose@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:49:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=65cP/j4g6kW5xFrjFnWQ0ql5/exyMDu0nxwVvLGV94M=; b=bBVltPRbglcwXBtBaEQvCoG4sheGrxAD5cAVvSvPvtOk6/w9FuyR6TV0J8qQTRh395 mf/pGqhMfxd/od95YU+R67DTdyxBjqR/bMnjBGlhRIjalj1fiomgdPLUhZwz0BT+Q6Ys sM55mnVQUmI1kUFyv0CTSbWeOavhcy+nDvxngg2yDsqVxYc4WJondjOKUolM+vqQc2Vx osbl0auHeJIqm9cxT0C6kuFbj0l4yMHKdbjcLIetls4bKnPjQm5BolYX+YDqxY4v3Vgb adV0SYEirOCLNL6iELvrL8FnpydI4OSMEEWxNz+P9hELGSyXEnrvVbCXXeAZ3cVGHxn9 HDfw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.171.102 with SMTP id at6mr13795681oec.60.1363117750959; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.40.233 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [128.89.253.127]
In-Reply-To: <9E337D95-53AD-431D-A053-76F1F5EF7FAA@ve7jtb.com>
References: <8B4C063947CD794BB6FF90C78BAE9B321EFC0A36@IMCMBX04.MITRE.ORG> <9E337D95-53AD-431D-A053-76F1F5EF7FAA@ve7jtb.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:49:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL02cgQS6pRjFJGdnin_hToTNGak2XDmb-6j3vVGUi1eZb_1Cg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
To: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec54ee09455629f04d7bf95b2"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk/a5APelCQ9WEnUWhNFFVXjK1oaQSPKntc3WXm97B44f0QN+7ReRc7GXcZmfV0fArcSe8s
Cc: "Peck, Michael A" <mpeck@mitre.org>, "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [jose] RSASSA-PSS signature
X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:49:12 -0000

Since we are not putting requirements on algorithms (i.e., there is no
MTI), there's no harm to having PSS in the algorithms list.  Only benefit!
--Richard


On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:24 PM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote:

> This has had a fair amount of discussion.   While I think almost everyone
> would prefer PSS, many implementations are going to be in scripting
> languages where the underlying libraries only support PKCS1-v1_5.
>
> We did a survey of platforms to evaluate if we could move to PSS and the
> result lead us not to make PSS as the MTI.  In think that was reported out
> at the Atlanta IETF meeting.
> Nat may be able to forward that to you, I don't have it handy.
>
> If we were talking about starting from scratch and not building on
> existing platforms likely the answer would have been different.
>
> The algorithms are extensible so PSS can be added.   The other
> consideration is that many of the people who care will be using ECESA
> signatures anyway.
>
> John B.
>
> On 2013-03-12, at 2:52 PM, "Peck, Michael A" <mpeck@mitre.org> wrote:
>
> draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-08 includes RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5
> signatures but not RSASSA-PSS.****
> ** **
> The Security Considerations states:****
>    While Section 8 of RFC 3447 [RFC3447] explicitly calls for people not**
> **
>    to adopt RSASSA-PKCS1 for new applications and instead requests that***
> *
>    people transition to RSASSA-PSS, this specification does include****
>    RSASSA-PKCS1, for interoperability reasons, because it commonly****
>    implemented.****
> ** **
> Shouldn’t RSASSA-PSS at least be included as an option?****
> I’m also not sure if I fully understand the interoperability concerns.
> JWS is a new specification, so it makes sense to me to use whatever
> algorithms are currently considered best practice, without need to worry
> about backwards compatibility?****
> ** **
> Mike****
> ** **
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> jose@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email