IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Partial review of the crypto refresh

Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com> Thu, 24 November 2022 14:37 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 1D492C14CF04 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Nov 2022 06:37:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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_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=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 Dr0WreNgM7W4 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Nov 2022 06:37:46 -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 A57D2C14CF00 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Nov 2022 06:37:46 -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 ACA745F2A1; Thu, 24 Nov 2022 14:37:41 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=andrewg.com; s=andrewg-com; t=1669300661; bh=OacP2S1STzCepvkt7BgSV8RmKqK23kC3Ob4lJdocHxM=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:From; b=qqYWx/TNs4m1uSKkyo8FwANVz3z/6Gd67JBrvwCts5BAOhRW+vyF/4EnFHDw/Q4mP /YaLhKQyIQbE/ctXgbDJzd/1VwioVS7VOAnW1SWPZJffXMG4psCxVHZpVLdc5aqij8 fFhe6H0jCt37autSogfSqp2WZ0ge22+hyaDfM7vzwYJcyIe+8gcivmTBActl8tBoJZ FkjuQ8wmqZelaHR+Y5NLys0f0i8WWhoaup/MqVu7i9aZE6BR2l/sTOmLq7h+LW7DWR Ga1BAHvp4mo/Jx9Wsh+zTKd3yQx8Vu/+GBzxiRMspV7jCter+gutvG+IbePujGs7iR imub7nkY9XmIA==
From: Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com>
Message-Id: <F3DD8D6F-A421-434D-9073-5CD3109421DA@andrewg.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D23CE60C-3ED6-4910-8D74-409A375B1564"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2022 14:37:29 +0000
In-Reply-To: <HniDSkOrqQhzJeIb0B_7yLgQjsIDVZZdGPnwttTdfpk4LCN7B4Nh1J6xzv1eZIV-OR6UemykSEdao4pWe5gFfr5BUWhEfHX8mdj6Jhla6xg=@protonmail.com>
Cc: IETF OpenPGP WG <openpgp@ietf.org>
To: Daniel Huigens <d.huigens=40protonmail.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <HniDSkOrqQhzJeIb0B_7yLgQjsIDVZZdGPnwttTdfpk4LCN7B4Nh1J6xzv1eZIV-OR6UemykSEdao4pWe5gFfr5BUWhEfHX8mdj6Jhla6xg=@protonmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/Vg1j7u6wHCfWWzsAMVAPprObYpc>
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: Thu, 24 Nov 2022 14:37:51 -0000

On 24 Nov 2022, at 13:53, Daniel Huigens <d.huigens=40protonmail.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>> 3.7.1.3.  Iterated and Salted S2K
>> 
>>   This includes both a salt and an octet count.  The salt is combined
>>   with the passphrase and the resulting value is hashed repeatedly.
> 
> To make this clearer, "hashed repeatedly" should be changed to
> "repeated and then hashed", as that's what actually happens. Similarly,
> 
>>   Then the salt, followed by the passphrase data, is repeatedly hashed
>>   until the number of octets specified by the octet count has been
>>   hashed.
> 
> could be something like "repeatedly passed to the hash function".

I’m not convinced this makes it any clearer. Maybe “the process is repeated a large number of times”?

>> 
>>   *  Some technologies mentioned here may be subject to government
>>      control in some countries.
> 
> Is this still true? Can this be removed?

IMO this should be kept in. Even if it is not currently true, it may become true again during the lifetime of this standard.

A

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email