IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Should signatures be rejected if the embedded hash prefix does not match?

Justus Winter <justus@sequoia-pgp.org> Thu, 02 March 2023 14:14 UTC

Return-Path: <justus@sequoia-pgp.org>
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 CED5AC159A24 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 06:14:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.692
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.692 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)" header.d=sequoia-pgp.org
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 EJDE8egZt6jt for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 06:14:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from harrington.uberspace.de (harrington.uberspace.de [185.26.156.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43BD1C159823 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 06:14:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 25423 invoked by uid 500); 2 Mar 2023 14:14:26 -0000
Authentication-Results: harrington.uberspace.de; auth=pass (plain)
From: Justus Winter <justus@sequoia-pgp.org>
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>, openpgp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <87y1ofqm83.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
References: <87lekkts65.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <d759691a-c447-f66d-b839-f1b87e6b89af@andrewg.com> <87y1oj5ltj.fsf@europ.lan> <edeb91b0-6e7e-fa35-c571-d16dff433871@andrewg.com> <87v8jn5e4k.fsf@europ.lan> <55c56429-e1b1-97d3-5ad3-c54a69428143@andrewg.com> <87sfer588g.fsf@europ.lan> <b2a78baa-4636-9353-e079-232d580806a0@andrewg.com> <87o7pe69m6.fsf@europ.lan> <6lLcuziqTC31StjVfWBQYzemBHmXkVQG_LV6cIQ1lQU7qtOTr-HKCRHzxSY5LXsFU_BnnElSN0zry-RGK8TtC5cM_Ab4KsuWSPON8-82ZOM=@protonmail.com> <ebd88ec4-787b-fea7-f822-e6b514343dba@andrewg.com> <87wn41ru96.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87cz5sbsv3.fsf@europ.lan> <2ae335f9-b36a-f5e1-8668-b94a805b709e@andrewg.com> <87lekgs64c.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <fb3a9276-f948-73dc-af81-46dfa9b02209@andrewg.com> <87a60vbi7n.fsf@europ.lan> <5ba74a57-c039-5ab8-45bc-30ae681bc8c8@andrewg.com> <877cvzbet0.fsf@europ.lan> <c8bc1904-dcaf-6ab9-1f16-85a0a2761c6f@andrewg.com> <87y1ofqm83.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2023 15:14:25 +0100
Message-ID: <874jr3b5q6.fsf@europ.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Rspamd-Bar: ---
X-Rspamd-Report: MIME_GOOD(-0.2) SIGNED_PGP(-2) SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1) BAYES_HAM(-2.640575)
X-Rspamd-Score: -3.840575
Received: from unknown (HELO unkown) (::1) by harrington.uberspace.de (Haraka/3.0.1) with ESMTPSA; Thu, 02 Mar 2023 15:14:26 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sequoia-pgp.org; s=uberspace; h=from; bh=0vMIeRa2N3p5gSxEcw7Atl5seC7NL3Lkye5gw6NOzyE=; b=V78bL1dH3ot2sne1Idq1CdYqZT9Z/cvsTF6+qFaS2CwMozDm8DMGE2UnkvFg0smbQas4aewBYa 1t7Gg4USy8ak+T8vEAe107OKMfMqfJnWsadLc/Ol54GvnhL5AEJeXiu4JohQKj5AJhSIExUg1ZSd sp3ggMnwxVdKzDV+Jr0L/5MbTlm0fNyafoq9oAGE3lKzSsllBN1bN3K6X1uK+1ygtaZyKVJiE6TK BXSi+LrSfyyhElYHJRUUFmEJavssBotmTMz/q5OmAscxs5p80hAwgItC79NXFRvnUP8ScbR98NId bitI6JiVsailE9RyxhrA+amSw5QDq32n+ZXpRPXeVHrquZRAtNTeVTWIvCQqdDLbpkFjGRTFLGIf gbTkiXrVib+8epk/PL31uSCJUv+BDS8jawM4CWhzgOt8kka+NOe9l332fnR8CXB0MM1eBrA9T1BP fLC/oe97VaoyNd2V8ytSCtZ6eFXJwTpNcZGuNDj/oOr0FyLEvasXvZZmFCroPAzrw5+DyHWQoW77 w0EovX1Ujunh7X2I5loxnqh6D+Un/nBFvgX1RzBod5j8affX+2vVziUJaTeDHQRfv9kCLgZJMPw7 o3p/fegc345aiSKPqiKyMjD3Ze7qojUEWgpFL1LjKOT9CzKN4zQM6f5T74ArzczygQTI/tsqEM8F M=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/ka0VaFOoebJm_FRQFFwbV1jAsEo>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Should signatures be rejected if the embedded hash prefix does not match?
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, 02 Mar 2023 14:14:32 -0000

Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> writes:

> Can we get a consensus read from the group about whether the proposal as
> it stands in !213 is acceptable?
>
> The proposal adds this single sentence to the crypto-refresh:
>
>     When verifying a v6 signature, an implementation MUST reject the
>     signature if these octets don't match the first two octets of the
>     computed hash.

I approve.

Best,
Justus

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email