IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-curve25519-01: Is public key validation necessary or helpful?

Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com> Wed, 30 December 2015 11:16 UTC

Return-Path: <ilariliusvaara@welho.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 384241AC410 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 03:16:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 aZOwhZPVPT1r for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 03:16:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from welho-filter3.welho.com (welho-filter3.welho.com [83.102.41.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCB241AC40C for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 03:16:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by welho-filter3.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3D0E1AD; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 13:16:32 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at pp.htv.fi
Received: from welho-smtp1.welho.com ([IPv6:::ffff:83.102.41.84]) by localhost (welho-filter3.welho.com [::ffff:83.102.41.25]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LTzn04ZXtmkO; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 13:16:32 +0200 (EET)
Received: from LK-Perkele-V2 (87-92-35-116.bb.dnainternet.fi [87.92.35.116]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by welho-smtp1.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 86900138; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 13:16:32 +0200 (EET)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 13:16:31 +0200
From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
To: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>
Message-ID: <20151230111631.GB23341@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi>
References: <CAFewVt4Midtq7X6px4=A4hGkspQuJdzZQ907U=SJox0SdgfAJg@mail.gmail.com> <CACsn0cng1o-5hm=zuL6puOGJ8A2bjB=fFsaFsBCmmVofNSuumg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXQS3Ek6jDjx0aSQmaf+=EjfGWa8MG1AO4QwhJbK50VQg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFewVt4NSGDP_At8XsX4OsxSUaj_2kRyFP_keDQhfnR0=mBhrg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUq0_28U6VqE=ZPpwutOBUkTGwhxqHQOEvQve5JYfSVRA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFewVt6fyqbOZfQkWY=9SM20WcrP0UhfH+3wvXjiYoTjPm2pgA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFewVt5U9awAg4FbdWtXiCATd-kWttdsAwe3eWwcD5SXsKvyWQ@mail.gmail.com> <6F6EDAA8-15F2-4949-B927-4D0BD0E8FFE3@inria.fr> <20151230105207.GB6140@roeckx.be>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151230105207.GB6140@roeckx.be>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: ilariliusvaara@welho.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/h0or63ZNWE2CfSPP_Qt0mXzNQrI>
Cc: Karthikeyan Bhargavan <karthik.bhargavan@gmail.com>, "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-curve25519-01: Is public key validation necessary or helpful?
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: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:16:36 -0000

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 11:52:07AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:10:47PM +0200, Karthikeyan Bhargavan wrote:
> > As mentioned before, validating Curve25519 public values is necessary in TLS 1.2 without session hash.
> > Otherwise, as we pointed out in [1], the triple handshake attack returns.
> 
> Would it make sense to have session hash as a requirement in TLS
> 1.2 when you want to use Curve25519?

I don't think that is reasonable.

The RFC4492bis document could point out the consequences of omitting
the zero check (which is already REQUIRED) in the security
considerations tho.


-Ilari

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email