Re: [TLS] Another INRIA bug in TLS

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Mon, 01 June 2015 23:40 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 092D21A1BE9 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 16:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.666
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=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 C0DzAOinmAs3 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 16:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a89.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29C911A1BCD for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 16:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a89.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a89.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05F71318096; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 16:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=fiPNLwd3t2q6bhy5cd2fZeKRMtg=; b=JeSaJcD/ptT wvGCv4rENee+viVLF4M2ycEaiId1ODSTjuVUTBpj446xuQpLoKFm25KP+YWwRWpC vnmMMVn5yysLTKvqbk3+g6Q3ksRWvD3OiRhOjCMEIgqSp+f70anNhIIOiGy6dq6A Jo0iIRxfARpI/mgCbc/aD2sZVUD43FtY=
Received: from localhost (108-207-244-174.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net [108.207.244.174]) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a89.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 70996318095; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 16:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 18:40:16 -0500
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Santiago Zanella-Beguelin <santiago@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <20150601234015.GF17122@localhost>
References: <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C73AB029727@uxcn10-tdc05.UoA.auckland.ac.nz> <1432317148442.5357@microsoft.com> <87pp5snxha.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <BLUPR03MB13963BE37177243E5B89262B8CC00@BLUPR03MB1396.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CABkgnnXUfmuhfudKT9K+TpPOzq0Bg1aoGDDAbLW+erktWzRUEA@mail.gmail.com> <578DE2AF-A139-4CDC-B71C-C67C28267FCB@inria.fr> <556072C3.9010808@cs.tcd.ie> <1432386773128.94453@microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1432386773128.94453@microsoft.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/vR6ETukB8uWSrhCOef4ZTYmTFzo>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Another INRIA bug in TLS
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 23:40:19 -0000

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 01:12:53PM +0000, Santiago Zanella-Beguelin wrote:
> > From: TLS <tls-bounces@ietf.org>; on behalf of Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>;
> > 
> > On 23/05/15 07:21, Karthikeyan Bhargavan wrote:
> > > The “avoid fixed groups” recommendation applies to 1024 bits (and any
> > > other group-size for which precomputation becomes feasible.)
> > 
> > It's a really good paper, but if you have the chance I
> > think adding the above clarification would be very good.
> 
> Thanks! 
> We're working on that.

This is important.  It would be easier to have standard groups large
enough and don't require run-time validation (being standard...) than to
use arbitrary groups that require run-time validation.

Don't thow the baby out with the bath water and all that.

Nico
--