IETF Logo Mail Archive

[TLS] Re: [EXT] Re: draft-connolly-tls-mlkem-key-agreement

"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to> Wed, 18 December 2024 06:55 UTC

Return-Path: <djb-dsn2-1406711340.7506@cr.yp.to>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 348A8C14CE42 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2024 22:55:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rwHJn1T8mvJL for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Dec 2024 22:55:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from salsa.cs.uic.edu (salsa.cs.uic.edu [131.193.32.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4FD3EC151524 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Dec 2024 22:55:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 19261 invoked by uid 1010); 18 Dec 2024 06:55:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (unknown) by unknown with QMTP; 18 Dec 2024 06:55:42 -0000
Received: (qmail 58866 invoked by uid 1000); 18 Dec 2024 06:55:09 -0000
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 06:55:09 -0000
Message-ID: <20241218065509.58864.qmail@cr.yp.to>
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
To: tls@ietf.org
Mail-Followup-To: tls@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20241218042209.51218.qmail@cr.yp.to>
Message-ID-Hash: 6BTIAR36BMAV7QEU565CIUBDIK57ON2M
X-Message-ID-Hash: 6BTIAR36BMAV7QEU565CIUBDIK57ON2M
X-MailFrom: djb-dsn2-1406711340.7506@cr.yp.to
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
Subject: [TLS] Re: [EXT] Re: draft-connolly-tls-mlkem-key-agreement
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/5wpnAkGOdBMKbgS5O8b7rtjY9YI>
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>

I wrote:
> It's not that anyone has quoted an official
> NSA document prohibiting non-hybrid PQ.

Sorry, that should say "It's not that anyone has quoted an official NSA
document prohibiting hybrid PQ." Too many negations. :-)

At some point on the list there was a deceptive quote "Do not use a
hybrid or other non-standardized QR solution on NSS mission systems
except for those exceptions NSA specifically recommends to meet
standardization or interoperability requirements". To see that this is
not a hybrid prohibition, simply look at the preceding sentence of

    https://media.defense.gov/2022/Sep/07/2003071836/-1/-1/0/CSI_CNSA_2.0_FAQ_.PDF

stating in boldface "Should one use a hybrid or other non-standardized
QR solution while waiting for a final NIST post-quantum standard?", and
observe that we're no longer in the "waiting" situation.

---D. J. Bernstein

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status