Re: [TLS] FYI, RFC7250 (raw public keys) to be supported in OpenSSL ~3.2

[John Mattsson <[e-mail]>]

Hi Viktor,

Are point compressed secp256r1 RPKs supported?

- Uncompressed secp256r1 RPKs are 91 bytes.
- Point compressed secp256r1 RPKs are 59 bytes
- Ed25519 RPKs are 58 bytes

Cheers,
John

From: TLS <[e-mail]> on behalf of Achim Kraus <[e-mail]>
Date: Sunday, 22 January 2023 at 22:02
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Viktor Dukhovni <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [TLS] FYI, RFC7250 (raw public keys) to be supported in OpenSSL ~3.2
Hello Viktor,

 > Thanks to Todd Short, RFC7250 raw public keys should be available in
 > OpenSSL ~3.2.  Applications that use unauthenticated opportunistic TLS,

Sounds great. Especially for IoT/constraint use-cases that's a real
benefit.

Just in the case, someone is interested, I asked a couple of months ago,
if https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-subcerts-10 has
some considerations about certificate types without a validation date.
See https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-1d6e8c010f9a9db6&q=1&e=45adec37-94c0-453e-b42c-80479cc77e30&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftlswg%2Ftls-subcerts%2Fissues%2F107

 > The pull request <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-66e352cf1acf4bf8&q=1&e=45adec37-94c0-453e-b42c-80479cc77e30&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fopenssl%2Fopenssl%2Fpull%2F18185> is
 > still a work in progress, but complete enough for application
 > integration testing.

I will try to test next week the DTLS interoperability with

Eclipse/tinydtls
Eclipse/Californium

best regards
Achim


Am 22.01.23 um 21:41 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
> Thanks to Todd Short, RFC7250 raw public keys should be available in
> OpenSSL ~3.2.  Applications that use unauthenticated opportunistic TLS,
> employ DANE or have other ways to avoid X.509 certificates and make do
> with raw peer public keys can avoid the overhead of receiving and
> processing certificate chains.
>
> The pull request <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-66e352cf1acf4bf8&q=1&e=45adec37-94c0-453e-b42c-80479cc77e30&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fopenssl%2Fopenssl%2Fpull%2F18185> is
> still a work in progress, but complete enough for application
> integration testing.  Likely too late for OpenSSL 3.1 (in beta now), but
> seems likely to land by 3.2.  The TODO items on the OpenSSL side are
> at this point IMHO minor.  Review eyeballs of course always appreciated.
>
> I have a Postfix branch with a reasonably complete implementation:
>
>      # posttls-finger -c <domain>
>      posttls-finger: <mxhost>[192.0.2.1]:25: raw public key fingerprint=<...>
>      posttls-finger: <mxhost>[192.0.2.1]:25: Matched DANE raw public key: 3 1 1 <...>
>      posttls-finger: Verified TLS connection established to <mxhost>[192.0.2.1]:25:
>          TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
>          key-exchange X25519
>          server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)
>          server-digest SHA256
>
> based on the the current state of the pull request.
>

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls