Re: [TLS] RSA-PSS in TLS 1.3

[Fedor Brunner <[e-mail]>]

Hanno Böck:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 13:35:46 +0000
> "Dang, Quynh (Fed)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Why don't we use an even more elegant RSA signature called "
>> full-domain hash RSA signature" ?
> 
> Full Domain Hashing was originally developed by Rogaway and Bellare and
> then later dismissed because they found that they could do better. Then
> they developed PSS.
> 
> See
> http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/papers/exact.pdf
> 
> So in essence FDH is a predecessor of PSS and the authors of both
> schemes came to the conclusion that PSS is the superior scheme.
> 
> 
>> As you know, a SHAKE (as a variable output-length hash function)
>> naturally produces a hash value which fits any given modulus size.
>> Therefore, no paddings are needed which avoids any potential issues
>> with the paddings and the signature algorithm would be very simple. 
> 
> You could also use SHAKE in PSS to replace MGF1. This is probably
> desirable if you intent to use PSS with SHA-3.
> 
> PSS doesn't really have any padding in the traditional sense. That is,
> all the padding is somehow either hashed or xored with a hashed value.
> I don't think any of the padding-related issues apply in any way to
> PSS, if you disagree please explain.
> 
> (shameless plug: I wrote my thesis about PSS, in case anyone wants to
> read it: https://rsapss.hboeck.de/ - it's been a while, don't be too
> hard on me if I made mistakes)
> 
> 
Please see the paper "Another Look at ``Provable Security''" from Neal
Koblitz and Alfred Menezes.

https://eprint.iacr.org/2004/152

Section 7: Conclusion

"There is no need for the PSS or Katz-Wang versions of RSA;
one might as well use just the basic “hash and exponentiate” signature
scheme (with a full-domain hash function)."

Fedor