IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] sect571r1

Dave Garrett <davemgarrett@gmail.com> Thu, 16 July 2015 02:42 UTC

Return-Path: <davemgarrett@gmail.com>
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 C534B1B35A2 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 19:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 stBid6Yb5dqr for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 19:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x229.google.com (mail-qk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::229]) (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 3FAA61B359E for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 19:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qkdl129 with SMTP id l129so42024663qkd.0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 19:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=h65lg71Ax5dXnszPATB0jqvmIUS0T+hGbEGsORbjUz0=; b=rjHyeKnGMFOEQgCaMCRkNFmwKE00BfKTGFlJArgUuVGIoBowpkxCRRDlQCTSgB3Ya0 UluEKFF1LkMl3AoUGXM9nXbNNDqMvdT4UeR5vXZUS+9IN79eXgINhsFooYchjWG3C9yW 5XImPJLNYQpAvSMzTwoslOYSFKi41WjTmxKr35gFWycqPHiMeMDKAjtIF5g792gANghG gY9uAKw+Ie3jOpG0UHvqF7xhzJQ0kofI5orkYIHYtsSomJxtcRvFwoF8ShJs5fPDuOS9 eO78kbfB58YAksxdKXL3ymmMTYV0PgkYkiuMRZ2YOHyOKmzmuf+2y+lXoekNLnDiZTRV bZ1Q==
X-Received: by 10.140.19.82 with SMTP id 76mr13589002qgg.55.1437014577557; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 19:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dave-laptop.localnet (pool-96-245-254-195.phlapa.fios.verizon.net. [96.245.254.195]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e78sm3306523qhc.18.2015.07.15.19.42.56 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 15 Jul 2015 19:42:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dave Garrett <davemgarrett@gmail.com>
To: tls@ietf.org, Dan Brown <dbrown@certicom.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:42:54 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.32-74-generic-pae; KDE/4.4.5; i686; ; )
References: <CAHOTMVJ+Rbvojqsa35ysLy8M1YwWEc2Qm7LDppQj7YKdpr0cfA@mail.gmail.com> <20150716002056.8BD691A1E9@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp> <20150716014248.5333071.47478.4400@certicom.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150716014248.5333071.47478.4400@certicom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201507152242.55454.davemgarrett@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/fagMA9YmaNn8XZ-Tet-78vByLnM>
Subject: Re: [TLS] sect571r1
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: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 02:42:59 -0000

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 09:42:51 pm Dan Brown wrote:
> What about sect571k1, a Koblitz curve, aka NIST curve K-571? (By the way it has no unexplained constants...). Has it been removed already, or does the question also refer K-571 too?

Already dropped. That's obviously not irreversible, but it's unambiguously in the virtually unused camp. The initial goal was to drop all largely unused curves.

This question is just about sect571r1, which is far closer to secp384r1 & secp521r1 in terms of usage, though still notably less. If you want to argue for going with sect571k1 and not sect571r1, I don't think the WG is on-board with that. Even if we continued to allow it, I doubt much would add support for it to be worthwhile.

The scan I linked to found one; literally a single server on the entire Internet, that actually supports sect571k1 for ECDHE. The stats also show 1575 "support" it, so I'm not sure what's going on there specifically. (if someone can explain this bit of those stats, please do)

https://securitypitfalls.wordpress.com/2015/07/14/june-2015-scan-results/


Dave

v2.20.0 | Report a Bug | By Email