Re: [Ntp] Shorter NTS packets?
Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> Thu, 09 December 2021 15:47 UTC
Return-Path: <mlichvar@redhat.com>
X-Original-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCBB33A0D8D for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 07:47:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.701, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.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 8l5t4kVL_YP0 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 07:47:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 443D93A09E9 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 07:47:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1639064874; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=JTPXWRLFNJ4iPoUCpM1ntpVsIeBOSbGPHE3bfQvaqVI=; b=PAKwO668+i3ELP2NM6rxwwF8sFhTyY+aeaXkuamk9ZF7DEIVNrg2rXcp05q09rlztK3STt cbBHWnforA9OrnyLkWovlFNdru1Lwkzg9gHKT9YIcCmPnkXDwOJ9VJo3q/ZgaGV8/FWe7e dfbMOma4CF1N/DNULe1pzULAC6XM1N4=
Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-541-ZP1m1GDePiqUdlagPqPF6w-1; Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:47:51 -0500
X-MC-Unique: ZP1m1GDePiqUdlagPqPF6w-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FCD62F7A3; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 15:47:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.43.135.229]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70AA960657; Thu, 9 Dec 2021 15:47:49 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2021 16:47:47 +0100
From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
To: Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com>
Cc: NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <YbIlI9FlxX0MMX/Y@localhost>
References: <YbHR69xnXYUR3NY3@localhost> <CAJm83bCETBBEd-wvZRMq9tbN3ZPKz0kBPAUar4e9OR=_wyqWwA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJm83bCETBBEd-wvZRMq9tbN3ZPKz0kBPAUar4e9OR=_wyqWwA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11
Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=mlichvar@redhat.com
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/_jMils7K55khRvLKkJMjiWx9L5I>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Shorter NTS packets?
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Time Protocol <ntp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ntp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ntp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2021 15:47:59 -0000
On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 10:36:44AM -0500, Daniel Franke wrote: > If I had to make some changes to NTS to shave a few bytes of packet > sizes, the changes I'd make would be: > > 1. Use AES-GCM-SIV instead of AES-SIV, which halves key sizes for any > given security level. > 2. Shorten the unique identifier from 32 bytes to 16. Our choice of 32 > was *very* conservative and 16 would be basically fine. > 3. Add an extra KDF step, so that we export a common pre-key from TLS > and then derive the C2S and S2C from that. Then the pre-key can go > into the cookie so it only has to carry one key rather than two (I > think Scott Fluhrer suggested this at some point). All three sound good to me. > > #1 can be implemented today. The other two are backward incompatible > so unless they can produce some really night-and-day difference in > packet deliverability they'd best wait for NTPv5. We need to save at least 32 octets. With two halved keys in the cookie that is exactly right? Thanks, -- Miroslav Lichvar
- [Ntp] Shorter NTS packets? Miroslav Lichvar
- Re: [Ntp] Shorter NTS packets? Langer, Martin
- Re: [Ntp] Shorter NTS packets? Miroslav Lichvar
- Re: [Ntp] Shorter NTS packets? Daniel Franke
- Re: [Ntp] Shorter NTS packets? Miroslav Lichvar
- Re: [Ntp] Shorter NTS packets? Hal Murray
- Re: [Ntp] Shorter NTS packets? James Browning
- Re: [Ntp] Shorter NTS packets? Miroslav Lichvar