[lamps] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Call for Adoption of draft-ounsworth-pq-composite-sigs

[Mike Ounsworth <[e-mail]>]

Hi Guilin and Seo,

 

> I wish composit signiture build with that "half-verifiers" that only checks one part of composite can't exist

 

So this interestingly is very relate to the Hale-Connolly work on non separability.See draft-ietf-pquip-hybrid-signature-spectrum. What you are calling “half-verifiers can’t exist” is what they call “simultaneous verification”. 

 

We need to add better text to the draft explaining what non-separability properties it has

https://github.com/lamps-wg/draft-composite-sigs/issues/27

 

My understanding (without talking with my co-authors) is that inclusion of a composite signature algorithm OID inside a signed message achieved “Weak Non-Separability”, but that when you consider that within PKI, the verifier has the verification public key within a certificate, and that re-use of public keys between composite and non-composite certificates is forbidden, then all together this achieves “Strong Non-Separability”. We are in discussions with Dr. Hale about whether “Simultaneous Verification” can be achieved in this draft; the complexity is that most SV techniques require merging the two algorithms in such a way that you can’t use, for example ECDSA from your existing codebase and ML-DSA from OpenQuantumSafe, but instead you have to write new code for the merged composite algorithm. This would also invalidate any existing FIPS / CC certifications of the existing traditional algorithm code, and being able to leverage existing certified code in the transition is a primary goal of composite.

 

---

Mike Ounsworth

 

From: Wang Guilin <Wang.Guilin=[e-mail]> 
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 3:04 AM
To: Seo Suchan <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: Wang Guilin <[e-mail]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [lamps] Re: Call for Adoption of draft-ounsworth-pq-composite-sigs

 

I also would like to support the adoption of draft-ounsworth-pq-composite-sigs. The proposed scheme is natural and well described in the draft. Amazed by the testing results have been done so far. Seo's proposal is interesting, and I also have



I also would like to support the adoption of draft-ounsworth-pq-composite-sigs. The proposed scheme is natural and well described in the draft. Amazed by the testing results have been done so far.
 
Seo's proposal is interesting, and I also have considered similar thing: 
 
> while not directly related adopt or not I wish composit signiture build with that "half-verifiers" that only checks one part of composit can't
> exsit: not sure it's possible without signing at least twice with each keys
 
Guilin
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Spasm <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > On Behalf Of Seo Suchan
Sent: Thursday, 25 April 2024 2:39 am
To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
Subject: Re: [lamps] Call for Adoption of draft-ounsworth-pq-composite-sigs
 
while not directly related adopt or not I wish composit signiture build with that "half-verifiers" that only checks one part of composit can't
exsit: not sure it's possible without signing at least twice with each keys
 
2024-04-17 오전 3:29에 Russ Housley 이(가) 쓴 글:
> At IETF 119, there was a short discussion of draft-ounsworth-pq-composite-sigs.  The authors asked for a call for adoption, and no one offered any reason not to move forward at that time.
> 
> This message starts a two-week call for adoption of this document. Please say whether you support adoption of this document by Tuesday, 30 April 2024.
> 
> For the LAMPS WG Chairs,
> Russ
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!YYUE4e3GBy1CfPGdSCn1HixXtIB9dWZty2VMXsr0FdlQnF0GjW0eo-7nzGDA81p4pEm4DoZNhlGZmOPKpV0pvibY9MefFJEA7hDxB6dC5Q$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!YYUE4e3GBy1CfPGdSCn1HixXtIB9dWZty2VMXsr0FdlQnF0GjW0eo-7nzGDA81p4pEm4DoZNhlGZmOPKpV0pvibY9MefFJEA7hDxB6dC5Q$> 
 
_______________________________________________
Spasm mailing list
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!YYUE4e3GBy1CfPGdSCn1HixXtIB9dWZty2VMXsr0FdlQnF0GjW0eo-7nzGDA81p4pEm4DoZNhlGZmOPKpV0pvibY9MefFJEA7hDxB6dC5Q$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!YYUE4e3GBy1CfPGdSCn1HixXtIB9dWZty2VMXsr0FdlQnF0GjW0eo-7nzGDA81p4pEm4DoZNhlGZmOPKpV0pvibY9MefFJEA7hDxB6dC5Q$> 
_______________________________________________
Spasm mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>