[TLS] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-kwiatkowski-tls-ecdhe-mlkem-03.txt

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Sun, 09 March 2025 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
X-Original-To: tls@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: tls@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C52EA95843E for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Mar 2025 07:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dukhovni.org
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iMaTJ2rFGYXA for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Mar 2025 07:41:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chardros.imrryr.org (chardros.imrryr.org [144.6.86.210]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86478958436 for <tls@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Mar 2025 07:41:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dukhovni.org; i=@dukhovni.org; q=dns/txt; s=f8320d6e; t=1741531261; h=date : from : to : subject : message-id : reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to : from; bh=HaPjDqQYfrVqDL/UYg06+ZwzsGnT/KNj68GX/rD6g6Q=; b=J0CFW6o4nEOPUiAHYpAChRWYov58XYjOAt21oE8qGHFc6FN1eYlixtppQab7HBx8wTTel ySyro38SKyKM3m9DCMuslNW6LoZbveoBozKzOYaiWk5r7qaCRYW73hfGU4vLC1CnQb/Ncox DVJC34A/VuFoTZ4FXc9DnQ/IUQDNOaA=
Received: by chardros.imrryr.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B77E693558C; Mon, 10 Mar 2025 01:41:01 +1100 (AEDT)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 01:41:01 +1100
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
To: tls@ietf.org
Message-ID: <Z82ofVKnPfcyGyNF@chardros.imrryr.org>
References: <GVXPR07MB9678E29CF1D00E59164EB89089D72@GVXPR07MB9678.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <Z82aAuvLY1tiDxbQ@chardros.imrryr.org> <GVXPR07MB9678BFF2F2284DEDCC6B6AF989D72@GVXPR07MB9678.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <GVXPR07MB9678BFF2F2284DEDCC6B6AF989D72@GVXPR07MB9678.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Mail-Followup-To: <tls@ietf.org>
Message-ID-Hash: ZPENSFY6SSEQ6GDKXQGZH4J4JNQU27ZA
X-Message-ID-Hash: ZPENSFY6SSEQ6GDKXQGZH4J4JNQU27ZA
X-MailFrom: ietf-dane@dukhovni.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tls.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Reply-To: tls@ietf.org
Subject: [TLS] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-kwiatkowski-tls-ecdhe-mlkem-03.txt
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/4Q1LKAFhNzwxJWpJv-Ve1rRupdw>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tls-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tls-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tls-leave@ietf.org>

On Sun, Mar 09, 2025 at 02:02:55PM +0000, John Mattsson wrote:

> Viktor Dukhivni wrote:
> >However, you'll be thrilled to learn that it is not possible for a TLS
> >server to reuse its ML-KEM keyshare when a client uses a fresh ephemeral
> >ML-KEM keyshare.
> 
> Yes, that solves half the problem, but I would also like my servers to
> not talk to clients reusing key shares with other servers.

I've seen no evidence that TLS client implementations exist or are being
planned that will use *long-term* ML-KEM keys to generate keyshares.
Any occasional short-term reuse is much less riskly in ML-KEM than it
would be in ECDH.  If ML-KEM is secure enough to use at all, it should
be secure enough for some short-term key reuse.

I very much expect that there will not be separate code points for or a
prohibition against key reuse, and nevertheless key reuse will be
infrequent and at most short-term to amortise initial keygen most, with
most of the benefit gained in the first O(10) users, and rapidly
diminishing gains thereafter.

The behaviour of mainstream implementations will not stay secret, and
nobody will want to be seen as negligent of best practice.  The guidance
should be that single-use is recommended, but otherwise reuse should be
rather limited both in temporal duration and use count.  Guidance to
encourage fresh keys every ~5 minutes and every ~10 users is not
unreasonable.

And if some day we learn that quantum computers are impossible, we'll go
back to just X25519, or if CRQCs arrive, we'll stop using hybrids and
will use whichever pure PQ algorithms are preferred at that time.

-- 
    Viktor.