IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Comparative cipher suite strengths

Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com> Fri, 24 April 2009 17:17 UTC

Return-Path: <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 604F73A6B8F for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.88
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.166, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E-ZufyIAPStb for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com (brmea-mail-2.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D77A3A67F6 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dm-central-02.central.sun.com ([129.147.62.5]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n3OHJ4gt023855 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:19:04 GMT
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (binky.Central.Sun.COM [129.153.128.104]) by dm-central-02.central.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL, v2.2) with ESMTP id n3OHJ4aD036627 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:19:04 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n3OH9V5n017881; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:09:31 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id n3OH9QBk017880; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:09:26 -0500 (CDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: binky.Central.Sun.COM: nw141292 set sender to Nicolas.Williams@sun.com using -f
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:09:26 -0500
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
To: Vipul Gupta <Vipul.Gupta@sun.com>
Message-ID: <20090424170926.GU1500@Sun.COM>
References: <90E934FC4BBC1946B3C27E673B4DB0E46A6136F347@LLE2K7-BE01.mitll.ad.local> <5CBA9427-AA70-4128-8E63-FB5027F144BD@sun.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5CBA9427-AA70-4128-8E63-FB5027F144BD@sun.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i
Cc: "'tls@ietf.org'" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Comparative cipher suite strengths
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/listinfo/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: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:17:47 -0000

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 09:23:23AM -0700, Vipul Gupta wrote:
> I'm curious to learn why the discussion doesn't branch out to consider  
> ECC (e.g. RFC4492) instead of RSA? ECC is supported in OpenSSL/Firefox/ 
> Internet Explorer. Is that because ECC certificates aren't available  
> from the popular Certificate Authorities? This should be less of an  
> issue in an embedded/closed environment where one could use their own  
> CA/cert.

If certs are an issue and active attackers are not an issue then you
could always use ECDHE_RSA with the smallish RSA keys you have already.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email