IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] reviewing sample v5 certificate: can't validate internal signatures

Daniel Huigens <d.huigens@protonmail.com> Fri, 25 November 2022 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <d.huigens@protonmail.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 F2590C14CE45 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 07:44:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=protonmail.com
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 174qOiI0yVuG for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 07:44:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-4316.protonmail.ch (mail-4316.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.16]) (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 E4D4DC14CE46 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 07:44:30 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2022 15:44:23 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1669391069; x=1669650269; bh=voPR3zY5nE8q3EALzvB1B+4hpX0b1ONcmtnyUCqpO0Q=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=owy5jVM1sTQ3qNPjR8VA4AVkkEx1Eb1nUFqjfGiCooUYfIcKaSLEJIch5tDXuWOaJ WG2zQq4KHwiHrL4Ul3pnvsoGTjhffJxOxqjOzkyJpG7TvolxrR4M0+d+46qFad5oS2 qxjOfMrgkcXGbYfbUaD6IH6Rilz8NgeLezhcSld5W8lJAJISR0SfhOs/Z7DgXW5FxL 6Fbm4SAy7nH8UYkteK3LMIQeaRbjB/TRGkams/cHzT2cgBIkcTYj74I2Qn6FWDXwXE H4JSo44AZrRcly4sNN4dzEZbObdloPwkYHnFRfT7YglbSevCKtQRCwPNDe42kJd0sr AYX5XrNVlYtvg==
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
From: Daniel Huigens <d.huigens@protonmail.com>
Cc: openpgp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <LycMdjwdREeLhATHjLndoo5VK4tGazwTkOkvkfKh2N-DN9ub2XZvGIqhC2SWdFDp1rs7OnWJCgUONe8twZD-O3Uv9TYaR2wNNVHbQgV7mfY=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <874junuqb4.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
References: <87sfifzp3a.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <d00SL5PjvNYlsflHLLYPyh1E_JPpIUltjQCBB4HyeITSpCR8_g-4jNZsYJPUf2CZVrkaicEesXZNFf1UDe8-z9z48IR1FGGZIObq2ZHpsfE=@protonmail.com> <874junuqb4.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
Feedback-ID: 2934448:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/8a1tEEZz0o0r3uMbcucLa9sR_N4>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] reviewing sample v5 certificate: can't validate internal 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: Fri, 25 Nov 2022 15:44:35 -0000

Hey dkg,

> It's also a little bit weird that the draft's sample cert is advertising
> a AEAD ciphersuite preference for GCM and EAX over OCB, given the
> draft's clear preference for OCB, and that it's using SHA2-512 to sign a
> certificate that advertises a preference for SHA2-256 over SHA2-512.

Yeah, I agree. These happened to reflect OpenPGP.js-specific preferences
but don't necessarily reflect the recommendations of the spec, indeed.
So yeah, I agree with your suggestion to change them. Do you want to
do so, or shall I try to?

While we're at it, it may be useful to have an example with a Padding
packet, perhaps. (We haven't implemented that yet, though, but I guess
it shouldn't be much work.) And, maybe also an example Curve448 key?
(That might be a bit more work, though :').)

Best,
Daniel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email