IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Should we require compressed points

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Sat, 01 November 2014 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2958E1A002C for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 10:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 6OfMUfoSSJHt for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 10:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (mail-wg0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E35581A0006 for <tls@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 10:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id x12so7906316wgg.3 for <tls@ietf.org>; Sat, 01 Nov 2014 10:36:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=APdNSetd8s5BgSh6W0WUFExP26MzKgC58Audh3NXam8=; b=UL4pHfwkSFjDMYcm/6weD7GUmp5/TDP1Zq4uuUXOhxBr1J2QqKlGEDCPJp+vJ4TNyi tp01urkCT9crApVM1zeZiVACYJ6zJtzHnbMavOmkzANdOG/Ar3dJa1Eg/1AWCwq79qSi NLCj8VcrRNokqFcsKGEjaxN8o5Vd2LASwg3h+5kuFA128In/t1iziJl15A6zoF90Vt+p HSSiDb+sdO5kk2uaOd8xvyTfU7AevLZX9u8F+TJz1SZD30suy7snRgCG2h5S7kpeAL5a 1wzLY7WDzWgTWXhAJiULlkWqY3fZVoPr7NG7N70f366n5afDOxeCuR8HE7yldgxJDJ64 BUCQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkmdko/e2Yti2jye36yKnYCZoSpRXbKrpCeSTI0FZL7S7dg1F0S17/Us9AljveAiBb4Dv6G
X-Received: by 10.194.236.232 with SMTP id ux8mr36673166wjc.96.1414863394431; Sat, 01 Nov 2014 10:36:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.49.198 with HTTP; Sat, 1 Nov 2014 10:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20141031183146.GA12592@LK-Perkele-VII>
References: <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C739B9D6102@uxcn10-5.UoA.auckland.ac.nz> <CABcZeBOWR4BVy0e3TY3FVB8wqOwrUgD6OfHLTJS_iXUZv30CsA@mail.gmail.com> <544F635D.2000309@polarssl.org> <20141028145223.GQ19158@mournblade.imrryr.org> <544FC339.8010605@polarssl.org> <CABcZeBPctqdSia7tJ5F9s42wAYq5mWL06qjCPUxdWFVL-BSKHw@mail.gmail.com> <20141031183146.GA12592@LK-Perkele-VII>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 10:35:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPPhFcJja+b1h7Tq4g3ekwGXNxfZA96mwXk_=H+6J1PCA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01493f5808049a0506cf8e59"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/7eLkC5m9WO3jGx8PVwyznuMx_nk
Cc: Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <mpg@polarssl.org>, "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Should we require compressed points
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 17:36:38 -0000

Can you send a Pull Request with what you are looking for here?

Thanks,
-Ekr


On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Ilari Liusvaara <
ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:34:52AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > This discussion seems to be settling, so I've prepared a pull request
> > that implements Bodo's suggestion:
> >
> > https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/86
>
> I think 8.1.2 (ECDHE premaster secret calculation) should be modified
> as well, to specify using the fixed wire encoding of selected group for
> premaster secret.
>
> This is to avoid problems with more "odd" encodings.
>
>
> Note that 8.1.1 does not quite match that beheviour, since it specifes
> leading zero octets to be stripped (whereas DHE "element" encoding
> doesn't seem to specify if zeroes are stripped or not)
>
>
> -Ilari
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email