Re: [jose] 192 bit AES keys

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Fri, 19 July 2013 17:14 UTC

Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.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 41A3411E82B0 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.087, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 LoZlG1yhTi87 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gg0-f172.google.com (mail-gg0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 592C211E818E for <jose@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-gg0-f172.google.com with SMTP id n5so1345357ggj.17 for <jose@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer:x-gm-message-state; bh=jgyH7w7Vg53wIpJLmm5Q5bTyjGmab2IRmDwKQJ1rVww=; b=QHBeVXlg4GQapOOe4yjhTDb1Qnb5RqlFS32JdVGJmYchW+nqyUvSmPsPGbu80FlOz8 Uw1ZxXf8jyU+tvEAWaAccyAx9XIEkkHBoIIng8nWPC1HHVCx3wlgnOnrfRvXfGEogPVi 4K2byRQgFbZXam/YCBc2Q1e6wPt2xXhU9/ONKUAfxiIyN0z10w24KQ0kHwnha3A1/fhw m6Lqlk8/+kWZxHDdu4QlwsrL3mPoGj4QYHTH9YVcLcMobxMB3NARM+1EuCFnqMYeqLJk 2qekLZ6AAHZgD9/uuUhbV3Ry6wdyeYFinQe3c/kC/ZJSPPJFw9VvrN7OIrrWNLVMrgkb Seqw==
X-Received: by 10.236.180.3 with SMTP id i3mr9262922yhm.139.1374254049821; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.216] (190-20-40-94.baf.movistar.cl. [190.20.40.94]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b50sm22690491yhl.1.2013.07.19.10.14.06 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_41D29096-0A51-4106-99E7-F09C1613B597"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <038401ce84a2$f670a970$e351fc50$@augustcellars.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 13:13:34 -0400
Message-Id: <CFB27D5A-1EE5-42DC-B873-859FEA94CF48@ve7jtb.com>
References: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739436B6EC698@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <5CC365A3-7A21-40B3-B5A1-044E4B82D221@ve7jtb.com> <CAL02cgQH5czkGRn2daZh71Jci5oKFBoOfTzOfmHVD-Tah0g-sw@mail.gmail.com> <038401ce84a2$f670a970$e351fc50$@augustcellars.com>
To: "Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk7nWAY+BL/WbzpaPz/WJQlvKIPwVxvbYxuoOjz2hQ1DjKnms8BtZpjrfFbHaJWMvQifUBX
Cc: 'Richard Barnes' <rlb@ipv.sx>, 'Mike Jones' <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, jose@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [jose] 192 bit AES keys
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: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 17:14:15 -0000

+1   I don't think taking the length out of the algorithm and making it a separate parameter is a good way to go.

On 2013-07-19, at 1:11 PM, "Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote:

> 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)
>  
> jim
>  
>  
> From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Richard Barnes
> Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 9:47 AM
> To: John Bradley
> Cc: Mike Jones; jose@ietf.org
> 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 <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote:
> I am OK with registering the 192 bit versions. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jul 18, 2013, at 5:17 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> 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 optional.
>  
> What do people think?
>  
>                                                             -- 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
>