Re: [Suit] draft-housley-suit-cose-hash-sig

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 13 June 2018 18:19 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: suit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: suit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EFC7130F75 for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pWNW3jt2SEUl for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:19:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36CF4130F69 for <suit@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:19:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0920F300A3E for <suit@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:19:49 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 1b0HyBW9d8B6 for <suit@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:19:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.home (pool-71-127-50-4.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.127.50.4]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8B82F3004FE; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:19:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Message-Id: <20C674CE-D177-498C-BC1C-CD5D2A01DC7F@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B9E51B36-4B05-487F-819E-736E35969168"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:19:49 -0400
In-Reply-To: <31676.1528913351@localhost>
Cc: suit <suit@ietf.org>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
References: <31676.1528913351@localhost>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/suit/dK3RvsGWxN7eFiT5JtERmRhUY_4>
Subject: Re: [Suit] draft-housley-suit-cose-hash-sig
X-BeenThere: suit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Software Updates for Internet of Things <suit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/suit>, <mailto:suit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/suit/>
List-Post: <mailto:suit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:suit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/suit>, <mailto:suit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:19:53 -0000

Michael:

Thanks for reading.  I think you need to look at [HASHSIG].  It uses XDR [RFC4506] to represent the signatures.  The XXDR structures are in Section 7 of [HASHSIG].

Russ


> On Jun 13, 2018, at 2:09 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
> I have read the -01 draft today.
> I have not read [HASHSIG] yet.
> I thought I'd try reading this first, to see what questions I had.
> 
> I have implemented COSE Sign1 with ECDSA in Ruby, so I have a grasp of
> what we are trying to plug hash-sig *into*.
> 
> 
> Suggestions:
> 1) would the structure show in section 3 be easier if it was described by
>   CDDL?  I'm rather unclear about this.
> 
> 2) I din't understand section 4, where it says:
>      o  If the 'key_ops' field is present, it MUST include 'sign' when
>                 creating a hash-based signature.
> 
>      o  If the 'key_ops' field is present, it MUST include 'verify'
>                 when verifying a hash-based signature.
> 
> Clearly this is not something that travels over the network.  Is this
> somehow indicating how to understand if one is dealing a public (verify) key
> or a private (sign) key?
> 
> 3) the variations: LMS_SHA256_M32_H20, and LMOTS_SHA256_N32_W2, etc. are
>   listed, but I don't know if they need to be carried in the signature
>   structure somehow.
> 
> 4) I thought that perhaps we'd need CBOR or COSE specific way to transport
>   the signatures.  I guess I shall read HASHSIG to find out what the
>   signatures look like.
> 
> I understand draft-mcgrew-hash-sigs-11 is being advanced by CFRG.
> I believe that SUIT should adopt this document, and should do so in the
> current state.
> 
> I would like to have some examples in CBOR/COSE worked out with private keys
> available in the appendices.
> 
> --
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
> ]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Suit mailing list
> Suit@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/suit