Re: [openpgp] AEAD Chunk Size

Jon Callas <joncallas@icloud.com> Fri, 29 March 2019 20:42 UTC

Return-Path: <joncallas@icloud.com>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E124012034F for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 13:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.849
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, KHOP_DYNAMIC=0.85, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=icloud.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 Ckc-k-FSj7EM for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 13:42:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mr85p00im-ztdg06011801.me.com (mr85p00im-ztdg06011801.me.com [17.58.23.199]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1139812035E for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 13:42:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=icloud.com; s=04042017; t=1553892167; bh=cKrYi3yb4SvrGk6gY0BD8z07XgoSCuPffuSL7E+7QQE=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:Date:Message-Id:To; b=uJZwqPYAV8c8sadkww4jl1TVx6+EiPAxRl6Lf6DhNPL2l3UZDBVADRAMESaB9plUg 2+GeK/sNXxUHqRlLfesXgycshViD2Q4zd5gtRr5x7R6JyCbFxyezf+3dhcMlh99/UC VnhvM/FG1ey8SEuWlxFb+hYq0saxxSt0OPhK6MtGEaJjolkxGCgk5C8NOjPAtXmpWi FYCBGYR4vkQicZ68hTavsW9qKXdvry8OocCs57AQ5hWm1Q37s9NwUekfYfoKbR5VTw oJX/l3B+iXHBMwL+RKCp7eAXqyb/ul+c6NKMkolB/XcjLdqt17DGdnzwA6WQ2zX7GN IgO1gAMaePYaA==
Received: from [192.168.7.69] (thing1.merrymeet.com [173.164.244.99]) by mr85p00im-ztdg06011801.me.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 22D6BC0125; Fri, 29 Mar 2019 20:42:47 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
From: Jon Callas <joncallas@icloud.com>
In-Reply-To: <87d0m9hl62.wl-neal@walfield.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 13:42:46 -0700
Cc: Jon Callas <joncallas@icloud.com>, Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>, "openpgp@ietf.org" <openpgp@ietf.org>, Justus Winter <justuswinter@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FEE9711C-3C64-493C-8125-89696B882E0A@icloud.com>
References: <87mumh33nc.wl-neal@walfield.org> <878swzp4fb.fsf@europa.jade-hamburg.de> <E65F6E9D-8B0B-466D-936B-E8852F26E1FF@icloud.com> <87d0m9hl62.wl-neal@walfield.org>
To: "Neal H. Walfield" <neal@walfield.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-03-29_12:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=467 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1812120000 definitions=main-1903290142
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/1tOiDA1cgoeZ23d-tQJB0Q3qPEg>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] AEAD Chunk Size
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <openpgp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/openpgp/>
List-Post: <mailto:openpgp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 20:42:50 -0000

> On Mar 29, 2019, at 6:20 AM, Neal H. Walfield <neal@walfield.org> wrote:
> 
>> As I mentioned earlier, we really need some data on real-world use cases
>> rather than hypothesising problematic corner cases that will rarely, if ever,
>> occur.
> 
> Efail occured.  Why is that not enough?

Many of us think that Efail is orthogonal to this problem and consequently while it’s a real issue, as a rationale, it’s lacking.

You might disagree with us, and I respect that. Nonetheless, I find Efail to be unconvincing. I’d love to debate this further, but do you have *another* rationale, or it only Efail?

	Jon