[openpgp] Signing of literal data packet [was: Re: Disadvantages of Salted Signatures]

Heiko Schäfer <heiko.schaefer@posteo.de> Wed, 27 December 2023 02:26 UTC

Return-Path: <heiko.schaefer@posteo.de>
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 05017C14CF1C for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Dec 2023 18:26:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.103
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=posteo.de
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R5Ez0rxCD69X for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Dec 2023 18:26:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout01.posteo.de (mout01.posteo.de [185.67.36.65]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AEFEC14F6A2 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Dec 2023 18:26:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1435240027 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Dec 2023 03:26:37 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.de; s=2017; t=1703643997; bh=OsAbrrEBg9a6okdd2oNzK4zQuka799Wp3njp9u4lc7A=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From: Content-Transfer-Encoding:From; b=CwmInG3cXOVQAWm/OMu9ZqfVk52iSu6GL6Nl+b/xQbrshqwtGtBBhOHItyPmdPXP/ obLyFqWJcMM0n7r4PzXUMEDLSgX4DsdR8k9N8JUlzO4wd9szCmnv9d1SUoq45q5k5o yEIUx+idkbxETxD4HMSBCaUcr7DlgVtydb0tydaQPbCeAD5lc0XnliUo+6sGYbJw3p vjXAoMm1WAT5Vj7mJhUalnHb5wKe6Lt0hr9ZJwMjNaW+RXYCS2uR4xEa995hqfto84 WO92s8ruiy6MdZs4x7d+VioQnuau81GopnA2oSiqtiiLlS0wE1DJuBaWk8u7QW1v/j /7xOIub5wZTwg==
Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4T0FrY31kLz9rxD for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Dec 2023 03:26:37 +0100 (CET)
Received: from services.foundation.hs (services.foundation.hs [192.168.21.4]) by mail.foundation.hs (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03833705D9 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Dec 2023 03:26:36 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <b63b70c4-a9e9-431d-b6e1-8eac70ae965b@posteo.de>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 02:26:36 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: openpgp@ietf.org
References: <077dd27cef0c7d3968967fc4c3a880081b8bd9dd.camel@posteo.de> <87jzplrtfy.wl-neal@walfield.org> <87bd4895386b3a0cd0c62429b0b85df6f1860da2.camel@posteo.de> <db25c5b9-0d08-4b45-85c9-49b8277d80ec@gmail.com> <875y13sooh.wl-neal@walfield.org> <ba75b1b3-2b57-440e-ba6e-e9629bc9cf6b@gmail.com> <FF2CBF7A-8228-4483-9B43-B750ACBCE22F@riseup.net> <0cf9a740-d783-45c0-aa90-1d6868134021@gmail.com> <87edfp8d33.fsf@jacob.g10code.de>
From: Heiko Schäfer <heiko.schaefer@posteo.de>
In-Reply-To: <87edfp8d33.fsf@jacob.g10code.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/2txm5MxAyb5g62X9G_3V0p8nSTI>
Subject: [openpgp] Signing of literal data packet [was: Re: Disadvantages of Salted Signatures]
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 02:26:46 -0000

Hello Werner,

On 12/14/23 08:20, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 14:36, Nickolay Olshevsky said:
>> If subpacket is no-go (actually, don't get how that technically
>> differs from adding separate signature field), another way to relax
>> MUSTness of salted signatures is to allow zero-size salt.
> Actually I tried to include this into LibrePGP to get some kind of
> compatibility to the crypto-refresh and be prepared for a larger
> subpacket area.  However, I had to give up because the other part of the
> crypt-refresh is to drop the signing of the literal data packet's
> metadata.

Could you please elaborate on your point about signing of literal data 
packets?

I'm surprised to read you "had to give up" dealing with that aspect of 
crypto refresh. My understanding is that signing of literal data packets 
in the crypto refresh text works *exactly* the same as in RFC 4880. Am I 
missing something here?

Thanks,
Heiko