Re: [TLS] RSA-PSS in TLS 1.3

Fedor Brunner <> Fri, 04 March 2016 16:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C46AF1A1A68 for <>; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 08:45:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.803
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.803 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_SK=1.35, HOST_EQ_SK=0.555, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ldhPj0nQNZrk for <>; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 08:45:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DCDD1A1A4D for <>; Fri, 4 Mar 2016 08:45:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=azet; t=1457109931; bh=uBjep+ACL+Nq6t8WS1UlDGgbB5x4NJZG+Osap73BfUQ=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=XsVneRWUfVCIJWapy3PLn/10ZEm+jfGlhbyQqLgNqHQsDnDF3j8oPgjhz/9v/3Oor iAjomaHTd84lduUA0pBwLw/MRCNDXM4xLYhqgdQK9WiLpa85/FAdwq7djYDuv+2bHZ jGbgEKlFdC1TRZYhOhyPyrlCebtfG5HWfjserw84=
X-Virus-Scanned: by AntiSpam at
X-SenderID: Sendmail Sender-ID Filter v1.0.0 C9AF99A
Authentication-Results:; sender-id=fail (NotPermitted); auth=pass (PLAIN); spf=fail (NotPermitted)
References: <> <> <> <> <> <20160303144947.0402bad9@pc1>
From: Fedor Brunner <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 17:45:19 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160303144947.0402bad9@pc1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] RSA-PSS in TLS 1.3
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: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 16:45:35 -0000

Hanno Böck:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 13:35:46 +0000
> "Dang, Quynh (Fed)" <> 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
> 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: - 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.

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)."