Re: [TLS] Issue 555: Generate IVs in one HKDF invocation?

Brian Smith <> Wed, 17 August 2016 23:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5887F12D0F6 for <>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 63GU5lDgzG_z for <>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15C2112B074 for <>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:08:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f6so4772780ith.0 for <>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:08:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=OV4kZNpzl/3gXMOLZdjCXTvqe56A37RH+z0U8g1Vxbk=; b=vjQD6iK+UJH2jy2lGD0NvL+ah5iSTVdJ6kFyRAeU5qpaIzVmCYo5qv8hMfZcar0oAg iLDCDD0YHH7ZrKIhQGjocQ8o13mlT5a3ymMRs/72GEdI1O9Wl9NGAqcfQ6Um/8vN+u+F LQbV28GYQyj55SlsGt+GS2NtbeKEe5L7emxFGsuWTIT/0X+VxSoRdE1j8z4+RErlo+bV WvNQlUCYgDYCoS9FRBNJQiDtDYEnNN6y9chupArDnkV5u+tsKQblAhkWhPX3LNxmu3OK zaa/MVrd7wsxDL2OdnoM07h5Fmjldxz2CwiDAzIzMWjaZTDwI4S2eq7qYt5YoVzEmF/7 I2wA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=OV4kZNpzl/3gXMOLZdjCXTvqe56A37RH+z0U8g1Vxbk=; b=GqcqbETUr924ms1SNrqCZnzDznpkgIsE+K/3Qzoi0NzkGWIl+BnHrv7Ez/nogEDFF5 Lo2FvywgH7gJRyOtpWXoUWNW4AGumnaWKFUE1520fAZsEKgbdiZMtR+uNU1x4woOSErq DarA+bm3P5Dd3OSNPe2YH8LDmClKrFzklaeas1+WFr3ig3mS2oivtyDfRkbST8qNiBbM zeJzsjc0oYd1fUcLPWh95MGrM4GehxJGldB4YxLBK2MWML0zSJvUzInE90B+ZBAcTKSk I6XdwebPegQhJUHCnRoEh20z7esWemt2/Qyf6H4563tidJrDqqyhxHtH84VPl71o5k7B +eHg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkooutmIqEu2Qmdwo8Wvq+FblyRCmu4847FqJ0vQzzNGYer2ZtMlQN9z82VyB11HsSZIqsRhy0LnmeXFicMhw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id d18mr32135095itd.64.1471475322347; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:08:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Brian Smith <>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:08:41 -1000
Message-ID: <>
To: Eric Rescorla <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Issue 555: Generate IVs in one HKDF invocation?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 23:08:44 -0000

Eric Rescorla <> wrote:
> Issue:
> ADL suggested that we could slightly reduce the number of HKDF
> computations by generating the IVs as a single block rather than
> with individual HKDF-Expands. You can't generally do this kind
> of slice-and-dice and preserve the key boundary, but IVs are
> public anyway.

When you say "IV," what are you referring to? Definitely the original
intent of my proposal to use client_write_iv and server_write_iv is
that they would remain secret. I suspect that some analysis might be
simplified by assuming that they are publicly-known as a worst-case
scenerio, but that's different than them being "public", and we should
design things assuming that we're trying to keep them private.