Re: [TLS] SHA-3 in SignatureScheme

Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com> Fri, 02 September 2016 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8B5F12D511 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 07:30:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 GxSxpwVTUKUq for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 07:30:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from welho-filter3.welho.com (welho-filter3.welho.com [83.102.41.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A07C312D0F6 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 07:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by welho-filter3.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DF37102FD; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 17:30:38 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at pp.htv.fi
Received: from welho-smtp3.welho.com ([IPv6:::ffff:83.102.41.86]) by localhost (welho-filter3.welho.com [::ffff:83.102.41.25]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id meruTRJjhweI; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 17:30:37 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from LK-Perkele-V2 (87-100-237-87.bb.dnainternet.fi [87.100.237.87]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by welho-smtp3.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C92F82310; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 17:30:37 +0300 (EEST)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 17:30:37 +0300
From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
To: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <20160902143037.6r7twdxb7ljnkpmr@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi>
References: <20160902132937.18292816.43149.88607@ll.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20160902132937.18292816.43149.88607@ll.mit.edu>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/ (1.7.0)
Sender: ilariliusvaara@welho.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/eLZy8EvTkUEvS5IFWFb2OVrk7yU>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] SHA-3 in SignatureScheme
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 02 Sep 2016 14:30:42 -0000

On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 01:29:28PM +0000, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL wrote:
> Speaking of PRF hash, I want to bring up the fact that‎ SHA-3 is a
> better PRF by design, as that was one of the explicitly stated
> competition requirements (unlike MD*, SHA-1, and SHA-2).

Well, the name "prf-hash" comes from SSLv3-TLS 1.2 days, before it
was noticed that you need collision resistance too, which is much
stronger requirement than being a good prf (in constructions like
HMAC or HKDF).


-Ilari