IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Partial review of the crypto refresh

Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com> Mon, 28 November 2022 09:37 UTC

Return-Path: <andrewg@andrewg.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 EC763C14CE5F for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 01:37:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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=andrewg.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 bkJMrKBUPq3v for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 01:37:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fum.andrewg.com (fum.andrewg.com [IPv6:2a01:4f9:c011:23ad::1]) (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 D507AC1522B4 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 01:37:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [176.61.115.103]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fum.andrewg.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E6C35F2B0 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 09:37:00 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=andrewg.com; s=andrewg-com; t=1669628220; bh=LwFyCIA1P11hicEfKIXMzmRqyS/ZonHrkFPI1a7stxU=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To:From; b=nGRnXp+du1khC7TaeZRNsuCjOg4eZsMilU5ciqy156JM3IPQubYgd0nisDUoHT/Oz /0+qmwJnjMNqq0XCvVbaGVJpwddgVdCBbm41jTOpHa7E21AafRAAMbKdZ9ogGbK5iZ JWa9+R9OyjmM6PFDavXBpFmGRcRZtUQNwuiaY+sEmhWCfBk/Jh9gQut/cjvgEbj4Op WA3qh84F3EwQMX3envS6iEt/ZBy0iyPw3Ba9sz5XWr6/ZgCY0ALJVXX/M10xge/cxQ 2008Rz80zabauaD+hqy1WO8uWI3lYVIPx9pQE7jnV+TTO0eGxZVNg1mmHioGypfKu7 y44CWZ1zuOQuA==
From: Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2966913E-00D2-460B-BBE2-7F6BD4DCCAC1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 09:36:52 +0000
References: <HniDSkOrqQhzJeIb0B_7yLgQjsIDVZZdGPnwttTdfpk4LCN7B4Nh1J6xzv1eZIV-OR6UemykSEdao4pWe5gFfr5BUWhEfHX8mdj6Jhla6xg=@protonmail.com> <F3DD8D6F-A421-434D-9073-5CD3109421DA@andrewg.com> <xSyr2aLL4WSuERbvOHNbOmueLFUAatnuVmcpHDTASzuu1RciUQz0nnjxrnLygi35Ju2envcT6-sL450atkay2Y24hCOuwl415nGA_gplJlk=@protonmail.com>
To: IETF OpenPGP WG <openpgp@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <xSyr2aLL4WSuERbvOHNbOmueLFUAatnuVmcpHDTASzuu1RciUQz0nnjxrnLygi35Ju2envcT6-sL450atkay2Y24hCOuwl415nGA_gplJlk=@protonmail.com>
Message-Id: <05EDD648-9109-4316-9F30-52BBDBB726AA@andrewg.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/Ttr6Qyqn8KAP9twEYostOdDQJEo>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Partial review of the crypto refresh
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: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 09:37:29 -0000

On 24 Nov 2022, at 15:22, Daniel Huigens <d.huigens=40protonmail.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
>> I’m not convinced this makes it any clearer. Maybe “the process is
>> repeated a large number of times”?
> 
> But what process? This still sounds to me like multiple hashes are
> created, each one containing the salt and passphrase once, or something
> like that. But that's not what actually happens, there is only one hash
> that's created (well - unless the hash output is too short, but that's
> not what this paragraph is about) and the data is passed to that
> multiple times. So I think it's important to clarify that it's the hash
> input that's repeated, not the entire hashing process.

Indeed. This sounds like an argument for making a more substantial change to that section, to describe the algorithm more formally?

A

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email