Re: [Last-Call] [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies-04

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 02 December 2020 21:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC7FD3A1ADA for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:17:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 heaEDJjeaaqd for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:17:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22e.google.com (mail-lj1-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 637203A1894 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:16:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22e.google.com with SMTP id y10so55202ljc.7 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 13:16:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0YlVylj4WOzBuA3hkTomKw3Otae8/7qH9ANg8s2VXJs=; b=fBoIkKqGYI9rpv6injVqS9Do+Sfscq1XHulgU2VaGwmzvBvnW9RIFuoiJlXu39gWcP k0utXtcSdiQOHsNGvIUF/yE453GTkJSGBJUGdjlFokvLe9AzR+y6d+0myTjwFCojngzY taoxgJxb6d2QlcDYZRWDaPtd5GgpRjvNzvagJEBnzo0LyCvTtal5aYHlJCMFursrqqia FbakM7wXcJqHkeo8sKs3Wt5NXuPIPCEJilFJCOd2d1zsUYbZQzPwl3qPKPw7tVRD52z1 r+9HDYJIuyamntIJkclNuwBWLF06f/B2v/D4wJiduw/fFeg8vrOGCZA2OJebLerNqxG2 X5LA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0YlVylj4WOzBuA3hkTomKw3Otae8/7qH9ANg8s2VXJs=; b=qkCifIrtqb6oeRTh6max2DnkKStBY5aK54dPc16qTV2UAIsRfcwvMwt40sbkzasNa5 GP+CpSpWtIGBzpERGqqgjQh1s1hsCcWsKXi9m9dIWB53in1489N0IIVcycxeSyrUoILL VcO8hivreXx7pCkrmKgQnJErUim+qmsCx+p5chD/0ezimcOcdT0argdPUak7yz/AZRpA ZY+8zF/gyNP0p5JBbIddoyRSHteLd9BF9xzwedPMRWkKAIgZk50c9svzVNF1Ce2tuPzw 8I8U3Lkwj0tfsQf5//a/timZRDBG54pamqoE7FWs1fhaGBKCUCemX1mlrZEZBIzhqSoK 2w9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5320yzR4IY9Zrg79V0pZ7KiFdD01IT5ZhDMmJd8ONG4ETzqJImoU 7Ha3LruGxpT1T6jaGL7cahE3FU1LNwMmHutK/iq9vw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyGTsVwlxSvzkDp9pVcun4Czopexm1Oc8atypOhJkZpw6KaJXwJhYN63ILoeUekhBhVoDzGdkE6xbRJmfsQ3r8=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:988:: with SMTP id 130mr1986370ljj.409.1606943786406; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 13:16:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <160693121881.9413.5642470305677631145@ietfa.amsl.com> <17AFD6F5-11DA-41BC-8C37-E1893648041D@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <17AFD6F5-11DA-41BC-8C37-E1893648041D@isc.org>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 13:15:49 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPRn3aTBsApawvk_Ecyzdbi+SX9=b74y0_uhYx_Y8p-5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ondřej Surý <ondrej@isc.org>
Cc: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies.all@ietf.org, dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, secdir@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000090507b05b581c1b1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/ZNViEoh63K0IOEyCsVLqIszOdNs>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies-04
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 21:18:03 -0000

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 10:32 AM Ondřej Surý <ondrej@isc.org> wrote:

> Stephen,
>
> ad 1) the performance is crucial for DNS over UDP and PRF such as SipHash
> is more efficient than HMACs. No, it wasn’t consulted with CFRG, and I
> can’t speak for Willem, but I am confident enough to make the decision.
> SipHash is widely used for hash tables virtually anywhere now.
>

Well hash tables are an application with somewhat different security
properties than MACs, so I don't think this is dispositive.

I concur with Stephen that CFRG should sign off on the use of SipHash here.
With that said, how does SipHash compare to GMAC in terms of performance?

-Ekr


> ad 2) we need a value that’s synchronized well enough and monotonic. I
> honestly don’t see any value in using 64-bit value here. Using unixtime has
> a value in itself, it’s a well-known and there’s a little room for any
> implementor to make a mistake in an implementation. The interoperability is
> more important than the actual value of the counter. It’s write only
> counter, nobody is going to interpret it after it has been generated, and
> it’s wide enough to prevent brute forcing.
>
> Cheers,
> Ondřej
> --
> Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)
>
> > On 2. 12. 2020, at 18:47, Stephen Farrell via Datatracker <
> noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > Reviewer: Stephen Farrell
> > Review result: Has Issues
> >
> > I see two issues here worth checking:
> >
> > 1. I don't recall SipHash being used as a MAC in
> > any IETF standard before. We normally use HMAC,
> > even if truncated. Why make this change and was
> > that checked with e.g. CFRG? (And the URL given
> > in the reference gets me a 404.)
> >
> > 2. Is it really a good idea to use a 32 bit seconds
> > since 1970-01-01 in 2020? I'd have thought that e.g.
> > a timestamp in hours since then or seconds since
> > some date in 2020 would be better.
> >
> > Here's a couple of nits too:
> > - section 1: what's a "strong cookie"?
> > - "gallimaufry" - cute! but not sure it'll help readers to learn that
> word.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> secdir mailing list
> secdir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
> wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview
>