IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com> Thu, 02 March 2023 18:22 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 59A6AC13A342 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 10:22:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 uJDpmEBCq7Zf for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 10:21:57 -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 2800DC15DF4D for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 10:21:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.3.141] (ip-83-147-167-54.glw.metro.digiweb.ie [83.147.167.54]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by fum.andrewg.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DE0675F4CF for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2023 18:21:53 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=andrewg.com; s=andrewg-com; t=1677781314; bh=f6+6gDAqRb/Dih6ICph2ayRZ0lIbtR5lrJ2IOt/GUfo=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=CfiFlRB1fOYrJwT5WrecqjsqBGnHdQafsg+dEil1v3w7hFqawZC9PGekIS9ZVUTi0 JHm4h6+5d+ABdPb9wnH2QXlogebYuGNN0T4dfPvWnl2/EDdZIvcLVtYmILW9vP8G1I X3CIWyyHAn1mpSDe/+J4rD1oHFvOHj0gz1I64esiXksq4R55YG9ngPcl+iya3O1HVy A1wZX2jDPIIL7Dfd53lGESXf0s+3v0/tf7Po2OgcIA5Tsp0T5eJWbLgq7wziRlU3Ex 3HzinWIOFKz9MIA2Asoud4PFwS5cOOmN19eYhewbKV88+heCIT+SeSFAwom76ZxvVu al2DDGb9Qb91g==
Message-ID: <406481fa-ee10-dec8-51f3-8d9adc50072a@andrewg.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2023 18:21:53 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.7.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: openpgp@ietf.org
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>
From: Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com>
In-Reply-To: <87y1ofqm83.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/vLGHN67N1LyAr9jLJSXlUeiVEeM>
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 18:22:01 -0000

On 02/03/2023 14:09, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> > Can we get a consensus read from the group about whether the proposal as
> it stands in !213 is acceptable?

!213 is acceptable.

A

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email