Re: [jose] 192 bit AES keys

"Jim Schaad" <> Fri, 19 July 2013 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A42CB11E8163 for <>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.607
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.607 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LAVU7RdIXxSw for <>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:12:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6BE711E8189 for <>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:12:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Philemon ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 372AA2CA3D; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:12:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jim Schaad <>
To: 'Richard Barnes' <>, 'John Bradley' <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:11:08 -0700
Message-ID: <038401ce84a2$f670a970$e351fc50$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0385_01CE8468.4A1309F0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIfgk181M5vviS9HDl2ID68i5g8cgIZJIk+ApF2kPWYpOwkoA==
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: 'Mike Jones' <>,
Subject: Re: [jose] 192 bit AES keys
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Javascript Object Signing and Encryption <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 17:12:16 -0000

We need to keep key lengths in algorithm ids for the purpose of key
derivation.  Additionally there would need to be some way to signal the key
length to the system when doing key generation


i.e. you would need to change

jose.SetCEKAlgorithm("AES128") to

jose.SetCEKAlgoirthm("AES", 128)





From: [] On Behalf Of
Richard Barnes
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 9:47 AM
To: John Bradley
Cc: Mike Jones;
Subject: Re: [jose] 192 bit AES keys


Or we could just remove the key lengths from the algorithm IDs altogether ;)
They really don't add any value.


On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 6:17 PM, John Bradley <> wrote:

I am OK with registering the 192 bit versions. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 18, 2013, at 5:17 PM, Mike Jones <> wrote:

Richard had previously requested that we register algorithm identifiers for
AES using 192 bit keys.  As he previously pointed out, "It seems like if
we're going to support AES, then we should support AES.  Every AES library I
know of supports all three key lengths, so it's not like there's extra cost
besides the registry entry."  (I'll note that we already have algorithm
identifiers for the "mid-size" HMAC and signature functions "HS384",
"RS384", and "ES384".)


I heard no objections at the time.  I'm therefore thinking that we should
register algorithm identifiers for these key sizes as well.  Specifically,
we would add:

"A192KW", "ECDH-ES+A192KW", "A192GCMKW", "PBES2-HS256+A192KW",
"A192CBC-HS384", and "A192GCM".  Support for these algorithms would be


What do people think?


                                                            -- Mike


jose mailing list

jose mailing list