Re: [openpgp] Pull request for 8-octet lengths

Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com> Fri, 17 February 2017 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <derek@ihtfp.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 BCD3C129ACB for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:13:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ihtfp.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 aFl_lMjrD-4u for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:13:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org (mail2.ihtfp.org [IPv6:2001:470:e448:1::3a11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 805E5129ACD for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:13:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62055E2043; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:13:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail2.ihtfp.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02481-01; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:13:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from securerf.ihtfp.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:e448:2:ea2a:eaff:fe7d:235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mocana.ihtfp.org", Issuer "IHTFP Consulting Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C02FE2042; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:13:21 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ihtfp.com; s=default; t=1487348001; bh=rIE3FHi+aQxdjyybtLattwNq0u20LHBqksqfx1rEuY8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=NnsnJCmzwpOqDwEukT7TVlym7ljJmm+TLLrey98jVOXdkGh4VuMksXkRiZ6sw9Rn6 Nhoo6YSlohLSAiTaRD1+CxmEQOFUMHT94ZrfV6m3WyFpGYGu8qRLVGQdAOgGxHfN8v ++QDkVleP1nYARUuH7UEwkCTPujT1CENUrcUmrgY=
Received: (from warlord@localhost) by securerf.ihtfp.org (8.15.2/8.14.8/Submit) id v1HGDK2f008124; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:13:20 -0500
From: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
To: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
References: <20170213005928.2ytmjp3h2njyjcgy@genre.crustytoothpaste.net> <871sv1yy2k.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:13:20 -0500
In-Reply-To: <871sv1yy2k.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> (Werner Koch's message of "Tue, 14 Feb 2017 09:29:55 +0100")
Message-ID: <sjm37fc6bj3.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.2a
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/7iSsqDOzlR_JU--ydUCTAJXaiXk>
Cc: openpgp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Pull request for 8-octet lengths
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 17 Feb 2017 16:13:26 -0000

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> writes:

> Hi Brian,
>
> thanks for posting the text.
>
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 01:59, sandals@crustytoothpaste.net said:
>> There was some question as to whether we should use four-octet or
>> eight-octet lengths for signatures (or some other technique), as one
>> might want to sign more the 2^32 bytes of data.  I've submitted a pull
>> request[0] to use eight-octet lengths for all signatures.
>
> Although 64 bit numbers are often not easy to handle on small systems it
> will be easy for such implementations to hash the required extra bytes
> (thanks to Big Endian).
>
> This is an easy and straightforward change.  Unless someone objects, I
> will add this to the next draft.

As long as we don't deprecate V4 Signatures I'm fine with this change.

> Salam-Shalom,
>
>    Werner

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       derek@ihtfp.com             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant