Re: [TLS] Consensus call on Implicit IV for AEAD

Dave Garrett <> Sat, 04 April 2015 04:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E59F81A8965 for <>; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 21:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aof_JypBnzN2 for <>; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 21:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0AA21A894E for <>; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 21:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgeb100 with SMTP id b100so62758173qge.3 for <>; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 21:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=w4luTVhz6xOkT7ZRNZnBTHVrmaTRz4x2uk0y0mb2HiY=; b=bzRwXLeuaaLLI0VatlB0ocLRtf6DO/dZtAgtUN6t7PxNoYwiK3Y1JRs0mzRsYOY2Jh tybOdBMwA3YkFmvV0eivXXzt+FX4sk9vDV9jZRkMvvqP8BqTOrRfFePgPh1UBZvHjTn0 GWW6oz38tYmYkqK0s1bBkGIDKqBLV39gXquH2nNno7+N14qCng+o2vqXJ4uxZpcz7akb 9CrUBHo+ci4cUdh1pUmSrtPBlVXEdhSaWWuPlau/Y1yUIVBNvAS0T5ke8XOO4d7ENu6u eU3IyhG/usa5KIMfnaUcdeLlwPEbvfkkGxVlqA1+qx4FGNSeLGE5yIi7uNFFrKklG8q3 KqDg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 76mr6329037qhd.57.1428120088027; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 21:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dave-laptop.localnet ( []) by with ESMTPSA id c80sm7043407qkh.37.2015. (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 03 Apr 2015 21:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dave Garrett <>
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 00:01:26 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.32-73-generic-pae; KDE/4.4.5; i686; ; )
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Consensus call on Implicit IV for AEAD
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 04:01:30 -0000

On Friday, April 03, 2015 11:17:04 pm Brian Smith wrote:
> Conversely, there is a clear record of my objection to the
> zero-padding mechanism on the mailing list, and there seems to be at
> least some mild support for my suggested alternative of deriving the
> initial nonce from the keyblock.

Yeah, correct me if I missed it, but there didn't seem to be any real
opposition to adding randomization to the nonce. There was suggestion
of using XOR rather than ADD to mix random & sequence, but either could

> Finally, Ilari Liusvaara noted in the previous thread on the topic
> that SSH already does exactly what I'm proposing, or very similar.
> And, he also noted that IPSEC partially randomizes the nonce, as does
> TLS 1.2. It seems like zero padding would be a regression from what
> TLS 1.2 does, in terms of security. I find that concerning.

I would think it shouldn't be too hard to get agreement that following
this pattern is something worth continuing. At worst, it won't hurt.