[TLS] Poly1305 vs GCM
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> Thu, 17 December 2015 19:14 UTC
Return-Path: <cloos@jhcloos.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 D66EE1A886C for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:14:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.112
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.112 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 HWfus1EudI4y for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:14:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ore.jhcloos.com (ore.jhcloos.com [IPv6:2604:2880::b24d:a297]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 712C71A8729 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 11:14:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ore.jhcloos.com (Postfix, from userid 10) id C15961ECE6; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:14:30 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jhcloos.com; s=ore14; t=1450379670; bh=xldQ6wXCa81uIhxdAZklxBsJFhtZjNMxfpNjvSlygFQ=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:From; b=ez7sTtSKJjP8uldNeciK5eSrRsw7J+DGdyIFP0hSumooRLTdnbTCVcQVwhgQm8q/u MCgz4//eQT290F+poyerc2SQVNbNv1X3S45m38hGZ2+gfP/qZWe4cHHQaT/U+XkSXS F8K/f+W69ERBr08Cp4BsvsZy5reVwS93jx/piahk=
Received: by carbon.jhcloos.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 39C1D107AC44E; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:14:18 +0000 (UTC)
From: James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>
To: tls@ietf.org
User-Agent: Gnus/5.130014 (Ma Gnus v0.14) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux)
Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAABAAAAAQAgMAAABinRfyAAAACVBMVEX///8ZGXBQKKnCrDQ3 AAAAJElEQVQImWNgQAAXzwQg4SKASgAlXIEEiwsSIYBEcLaAtMEAADJnB+kKcKioAAAAAElFTkSu QmCC
Copyright: Copyright 2015 James Cloos
OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6; url=https://jhcloos.com/public_key/0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6.asc
OpenPGP-Fingerprint: E9E9 F828 61A4 6EA9 0F2B 63E7 997A 9F17 ED7D AEA6
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:14:18 -0500
Message-ID: <m31takdh11.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org>
Lines: 12
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Hashcash: 1:28:151217:tls@ietf.org::KibSoMiSuQfb5ipD:00003GFZK
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/uDEXWo8tjgYLg0uy0KDwQy_GyjU>
Subject: [TLS] Poly1305 vs GCM
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, 17 Dec 2015 19:14:33 -0000
Given the issues w/ gcm currently under discussion, and that poly1305 was originally proposed to use w/ aes, should tls recommend aes-poly1305 instead of aes-gcm for those who want to continue to use aes? Or does chacha-poly1305 not fall victim to the 2^36 attack not because of the aead but rather because of chacha? -JimC -- James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6
- [TLS] Poly1305 vs GCM James Cloos
- Re: [TLS] Poly1305 vs GCM Ilari Liusvaara