Re: [lamps] Double signatures

"Santosh Chokhani" <> Tue, 11 September 2018 14:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5995D130DDB for <>; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 07:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fMu5LNWU4Cc3 for <>; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 07:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 395B9130DDA for <>; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 07:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id h138-v6so16852352qke.8 for <>; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 07:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :thread-index:content-language; bh=WLJ5cIJpjN84e5u3exfpZQwRZh4KwYW0EsH8CQ6U6gg=; b=M3ciA1ndUwwbDPxXLuDlOAP1pg4evRK1dp0/QA3eU4cncJqTA79eIqxN3uB3mWq0Sw tttDgLIGq2/lHEJ+HJN709d0e0ECmvgcKfnc86YWOXA3hTIwqHJShduI4B/NN7/NuWqq VdIWRzUuBbmzAxMQMMxf9MK6HWlcGwRO4shBuXc6+epfjsKvefLjWW6rb1WZ4zyXsRGh Cn8nx8701NbOgQjvTLAJYmS9Q7T23ko1wUEQX+rZfNqOv268jjiXAHUC5SV6+wa2WOhQ Up5SZnJnuB6UV+GrP7CZUpch69J/8ozwnCUGzTERRBes1S0uh/6ywZ2LCF3pO7yvIANI ZCAg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=WLJ5cIJpjN84e5u3exfpZQwRZh4KwYW0EsH8CQ6U6gg=; b=DdkbG12qDngtU/E7Krd6Y9zw2qZk6gMHSlim3xMUUPaxaUfi8TbrMPTFJcfyqas7Ft jMJBTAanDVTOpAN9bSqtH2jrMbj/d/IA7SJZdvmZlz47yj1l/7TVNdOi6A+YEvr54CKh NTJi5K5MC2MftN7IWXB440FYLnIUvl/0ASeuZksOjLnfh6D2kH6BKy7KmwC1H1yJIA68 siL5n9Mth+uOb0CBs5IymtjAQfaHnYE4n5W//zkRw3ACKAhEhGcfeZHZjBtxcsPUtT+V 2EnOK1l87UCFCJVv7NXbnoKJx+eitvPonaO54TEHR51/s2ahzhEomu0nNECAgOrvzjau SJPQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51CK8fe3imtH0nqrXIkIYELEinuzuJ8/AM1tTdrpCawh71qsVd+P 5iw1cz7D8UKEdO0+l+rRS/g=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdZ/4c1YYWHtFbsMFVuGmtNdlPZbSdpzL2tDk+YSbrCgjewlpjgEOntsfMSJ5gVu0WzA+rJFuQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:a05:: with SMTP id 5-v6mr19112559qkk.325.1536676139270; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 07:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SantoshBrain ( []) by with ESMTPSA id o23-v6sm11860097qtb.23.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Sep 2018 07:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Santosh Chokhani" <>
To: "'Tim Hollebeek'" <>, "'Erik Andersen'" <>, "'SPASM'" <>, <>
References: <005a01d44916$7c9cb560$75d62020$> <> <004a01d44928$b1500d40$13f027c0$> <04ce01d4492a$39400ce0$abc026a0$> <003601d4499e$7c8be3b0$75a3ab10$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 10:28:58 -0400
Message-ID: <087c01d449db$c78e6350$56ab29f0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_087D_01D449BA.407EBF20"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQEeKhTkIyWJvDJmtkckrYoYnqsyLAKU/EXwAvtpPxkCYiDthAIpj1iIAzshKQyl7KP6AA==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Double signatures
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:29:03 -0000

Thanks Tim.


There are ways to accommodate your concern.


One way to handle this is defining a single Alg ID A which implies a SEQUENCE of ALG IDs and define the relying party rules in terms of its ability to process one or all ALG IDs.


Another way to do this is not every combination needs to be covered and the user community defines its own  Alg ID Xi which maps to a SEQUENCE of ALG IDs.


From: Spasm [] On Behalf Of Tim Hollebeek
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 10:03 AM
To: Erik Andersen <>eu>; 'SPASM' <>rg>;
Subject: Re: [lamps] Double signatures


Doesn’t the combinatoric explosion render this completely impractical?


You need N_c x N_pq algorithm identifiers just to handle the simple hybrid use case where a single classical algorithm is being used in conjunction with a single post-quantum algorithm.


And there are people who want to use multiple post-quantum algorithms to hedge against potential yet to be discovered weaknesses in post-quantum algorithms.


I’m not really looking forward to trying to allocate or manage O(N_c x N_pq^3) algorithm identifiers…




From: Spasm < <> > On Behalf Of Erik Andersen
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 3:10 AM
To: 'SPASM' < <> >; <> 
Subject: Re: [lamps] Double signatures


Hi Santosh,


You have proposed something like this before. It still puzzling in my brain. As I understand, it requires that we define a particular algorithm that has a parameter that includes the things you suggest. It is worthy to be analysed.




Fra: Spasm [] På vegne af Santosh Chokhani
Sendt: 10 September 2018 19:18
Til: 'Jim Schaad' < <> >; 'Ryan Sleevi' < <> >; <> 
Cc: 'SPASM' < <> >; <> 
Emne: Re: [lamps] Double signatures


Why not let algorithm identifier dictate the number of signatures and their syntax?


From: Spasm [] On Behalf Of Jim Schaad
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 1:07 PM
To: 'Ryan Sleevi' < <> >; <> 
Cc: 'SPASM' < <> >; <> 
Subject: Re: [lamps] Double signatures




The discussion in London dealt with a completely different proposal than this one.  While I think there are problems with this that need to be dealt with they are mostly not the same set.




Why is this considered to be a preferred solution to defining a new signature algorithm which contains as the parameter the sequence of algorithm identifiers and as the signature value a sequence of signature values.  The problem with just defining the extension to SIGNED is that one needs to make sure that the set of signature algorithms and parameters are also part of the data to be signed and I am not seeing that highlighted here.





From: Spasm < <> > On Behalf Of Ryan Sleevi
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 8:53 AM
To: <> 
Cc: SPASM < <> >; <> 
Subject: Re: [lamps] Double signatures



On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:56 AM Erik Andersen < <> > wrote:

Hi Folk,


In ITU-T we have plans to allow for double signatures using the SIGNED parametrized data type defined in X.509 to cope with situation as described in the internet draft: “Multiple Public-Key Algorithm X.509 Certificates (draft-truskovsky-lamps-pq-hybrid-x509-01)”


We suggest to enhance the SIGNED data type as shown below:





  altAlgorithmIdentifier  AlgorithmIdentifier{{SupportedAlgorithms}} OPTIONAL,

  altSignature            BIT STRING OPTIONAL  

  } (WITH COMPONENTS {..., altAlgorithmIdentifier PRESENT, altSignature PRESENT } |

     WITH COMPONENTS {..., altAlgorithmIdentifier ABSENT,  altSignature ABSENT } )


We are open to comments. We know that IETF is not a heavy user of this data type.


We have no intention to use this extended data type for certificates and CRLs.


For your information, SIGNATURE is defined as:



  algorithmIdentifier  AlgorithmIdentifier{{SupportedAlgorithms}},

  signature            BIT STRING,

  ..... }


>From the discussions in London (101), there were a number of challenges identified during the discussion - - that fundamentally questioned that approach.


Has the ITU-T addressed or resolved those concerns? Are they not applicable for some reason specific to ITU-T?