[saag] Re: Updating dkim standard to forbid rsa 1024 after deepmind paper on rsa ?

John Levine <johnl@ietf.email> Sun, 08 November 2026 16:13 UTC

Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A4CB46 for <saag@ietf.org>; Sun, 08 Nov 2026 16:13:24 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: mx.ietf.org; dkim=pass header.d=iecc.com header.s=62736af09f9d.k2611 header.b=A1yPGbFn; dkim=pass header.d=ietf.email header.s=62736af09f9d.k2611 header.b=PRbJ5rtW; spf=pass (mx.ietf.org: domain of johnl@iecc.com designates 2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=johnl@iecc.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=ietf.email
Received: (qmail 25206 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2026 16:13:17 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=62736af09f9d.k2611; t=1794154387; x=1794499987; bh=j+vYh3EKiaWP6FqpoL1gThZBrE2qmDnrIxdfc1sW26c=; b=A1yPGbFn7bXwnhW173g864DOT/XFUxYLMsnCUPXzlVwdVINJiZPnFI9HKyseGnddB/n6oS/+rkiQFLGbsCzOUCZSK5w9wO0s8uT47rJK71zK6OsbsYgGA3uFSEO9dH8vURGH+dWAFDkdWW1jTtOasNy56hFpSZxM8rF66g+4EEWnC2pIUNUHQpOE4KttPRPq5X6JSIpj68+iARlyt4lzcUVfNG1zJJUCRuVP8n+lFOAekl5K5L8BT3w8onyih6Kmb+LIzGvxCKaXjFtg5FSzCVq+eqvQ6gS6w5HYjE8n28I4RHO5WVHP3FELj8MNZFva+ayarudoSrBh12geo9wYEw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=ietf.email; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=62736af09f9d.k2611; bh=j+vYh3EKiaWP6FqpoL1gThZBrE2qmDnrIxdfc1sW26c=; b=PRbJ5rtWmioQQ7QCO81LcmZWJshjiTooyWnm2nGV4dwXT9n/QcqMRaruYRpG74ioxwaAq3xIjM/+J5ezv5JSqKsXMigsODH0Fjn0+otQO8xNnRIAhXzVm1yPDcFe9FmD43V4p9P1KlpDTH598M44a1PnFRtZHY7itBYcvRd5okmhMGjoPWQmK2Ju+zsQSi6r4x98ZxtaXLRvDBk+xjR56jroHCqYh1hhhGaVWOH3t65tAlYU90HfLMDHj4Oz6FKDklKaSUPXZ5555vdVPTDNJvwT/kk0Vy/8zSoDLhLnXL7h98OfVakPv7iGy9p8lSYO+OzIdZ4MRA0/gEr/bhMIjw==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA CHACHA20-POLY1305 AEAD) via TCP6; 08 Nov 2026 16:13:17 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 87BD31277CDCF; Sun, 8 Nov 2026 11:13:16 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2026 11:13:16 -0500
Message-Id: <20261108161316.87BD31277CDCF@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@ietf.email>
To: saag@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <202611071814.6A7IDoxV024655@mx.elandsys.com>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
References: <CAOp4FwQw4_sU5LX78NVHgGCfHj=EdZ2vngwn1DObmyydt6jVRQ@mail.gmail.com> <202611071814.6A7IDoxV024655@mx.elandsys.com>
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
X-Spamd-Bar: ------------------
Message-ID-Hash: HMAWNAZL2BI4A35HCBVCNLPFA5DAUTIH
X-Message-ID-Hash: HMAWNAZL2BI4A35HCBVCNLPFA5DAUTIH
X-MailFrom: johnl@iecc.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; header-match-saag.ietf.org-0; header-match-saag.ietf.org-1; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10
Precedence: list
Subject: [saag] Re: Updating dkim standard to forbid rsa 1024 after deepmind paper on rsa ?
List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group <saag.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/jVvlSL0hfvb_TJBsy2DeGfkpc74>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/saag>
List-Help: <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:saag-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:saag@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:saag-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:saag-leave@ietf.org>

>>Im wondering if dkim standard should have a bis or a deprecation for 
>>rsa 1024 ?

tl;dr  No.

The DKIM WG is developing a follow-on to DKIM, currently called DKIM2.  It uses
the same keys as DKIM and its predecessort Domain Keys.  In DKIM2, the currently
optional Ed25519 signature is made mandatory and we'll add a PQC scheme.  Nobody
is working on the existing DKIM spec which we expect to be obsolete in a few years.

We are not the Network Police and telling DKIM users to stop using 1K keys will
have zero efffect. (They don't use Ed25519 keys either, not even me and I wrote
the RFC.) Mail operators who are paying attention are aware that 1K keys are too
weak and have moved to 2K. Mail operators who are not paying attention will
continue not to pay attention.

Before someone says stop accepting 1K signatures, nope. They're signing real
mail, and the definite loss of valid mail with weak keys far outweighs the
hypothetical threat that someone might forge a few short lived DKIM keys.

R's,
John