Re: [TLS] Data volume limits

Aaron Zauner <azet@azet.org> Fri, 01 January 2016 16:01 UTC

Return-Path: <azet@azet.org>
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 B6CEC1A9244 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:01:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
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] 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 GMH28lPRZazo for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:01:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22f.google.com (mail-wm0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 496C91A1B07 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Jan 2016 08:01:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id f206so139138242wmf.0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 01 Jan 2016 08:01:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=azet.org; s=gmail; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=0ebQ5yeQZEuorqaRIM2MBA2Waic8WMc7KmsHbDAg2EQ=; b=enCJgq1yEy9tdV64ntAG3cu+6XmmS++S36H9j+Z1C086KQybUiv/MtpWptJoSgsdFa LFcWtI4DKY7B8HBIv1zlwFIZrio9bbElCv7E9UQQ6E+wiRKfubGBGPc2kMkyxQ4B9+iV HWkUw3gGlg+UOx7rZUUfQqEaYARX6t4u/HjmM=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=0ebQ5yeQZEuorqaRIM2MBA2Waic8WMc7KmsHbDAg2EQ=; b=m0UCKJ8lPwnihaCQ/+wWr4FdFTmJIZmvlzdD/hjoT5imooUDLkNgPzZrGsD929ZYev QCCqpPYwBXzqtoAkrTTSrcTkV9fYJG8II8Yl/Qd7c+XQpF/qOv01ICNfHsGTlMz8pD02 cF0WS/t2CA6jpQfvPKG3xPEHr1Wfjnz9EmEgauzzBn35+CO48zLnYnmEHWCzMSLxmk4g cqKcatEB/dfIOaZwbtrOhHMoK4XY6GseeFjmfbmZtwAWPErFEvd2KcoVuSc+i8SE2Xda rpBdZtNCbkB38XDaQNrBHRiL+oMLInqWuA1a/syxx8xno9PfLUifWhun/jCKEzKdMnG7 Rcug==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQla6yBYk3Xu59jgflI9gBtvQvXmDy24dX5nCz75YSsTFUq12j/NeejmCDaWKF8vrlP1JlrqSdTiRiLfam2YmXSMAATIOw==
X-Received: by 10.195.11.129 with SMTP id ei1mr95425315wjd.80.1451664088717; Fri, 01 Jan 2016 08:01:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from typhoon.azet.org (chello080108049181.14.11.vie.surfer.at. [80.108.49.181]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q75sm25742855wmd.6.2016.01.01.08.01.26 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 01 Jan 2016 08:01:26 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 17:01:38 +0100
From: Aaron Zauner <azet@azet.org>
To: Samuel Neves <sneves@dei.uc.pt>
Message-ID: <20160101165821.6cc8a962c4@1620a90cf4e0c0b>
References: <CABcZeBNR76DqPo0Mukf5L2G-WBSC+RCZKhVGqBZq=tJYfEHLUg@mail.gmail.com> <87twnibx5p.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <20160101073508.4dd10442c5@ebeb88ce88adeb8> <56866098.2010803@dei.uc.pt>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="r5Pyd7+fXNt84Ff3"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <56866098.2010803@dei.uc.pt>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/RFthWYK-r0d5LLpAhb_WgYJfj34>
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Data volume limits
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 01 Jan 2016 16:01:31 -0000

Hi Samuel,

* Samuel Neves <sneves@dei.uc.pt> [01/01/2016 12:19:36] wrote:
> OCB is, if anything, worse than GCM when it comes to data volume limits. It has the same confidentiality bounds as GCM
> (slightly worse, in fact), but once you hit a collision you also lose authenticity and enable simple forgeries [1].
> 

If I understand correctly the same is true for GCM?

I did not say that OCB provides beyond-birthday bound security. I'm
well aware that the mode does not really affect this issue in that
particular case.

> The real issue here is the block size of AES, not the security bounds of particular modes. Those are by and large all
> limited by the birthday bound. You could go with more exotic beyond-birthday modes, but there don't seem to be any being
> proposed for TLS. The simple solution to the birthday blues is, of course, to use a larger block.
> 

Sure. Agreed.

Thanks for the feedback,
Aaron