IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bis is bad

Linus Nordberg <linus@sunet.se> Tue, 09 May 2017 08:56 UTC

Return-Path: <linus@sunet.se>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A065A129407 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 May 2017 01:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 thJPqK03Vib5 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 May 2017 01:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from e-mailfilter02.sunet.se (e-mailfilter02.sunet.se [IPv6:2001:6b0:8:2::202]) (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 11BC6127B5A for <trans@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 May 2017 01:56:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.nordu.net (smtp1.nordu.net [IPv6:2001:948:4:6::32]) by e-mailfilter02.sunet.se (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4+deb7u1) with ESMTP id v498uouT001876 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 9 May 2017 10:56:50 +0200
Received: from flogsta (smtp.adb-centralen.se [IPv6:2001:6b0:8::129]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp1.nordu.net (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id v498uldg020365 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 9 May 2017 08:56:50 GMT
From: Linus Nordberg <linus@sunet.se>
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Cc: trans@ietf.org
Organization: Sunet
References: <CAFewVt5z3sq-Occ1VaHeNeBvt1yyCM_3_nssZSu2f_PBEL4SFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 10:56:54 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAFewVt5z3sq-Occ1VaHeNeBvt1yyCM_3_nssZSu2f_PBEL4SFQ@mail.gmail.com> (Brian Smith's message of "Thu, 4 May 2017 12:21:14 -1000")
Message-ID: <87lgq6if1l.fsf@nordberg.se>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.74
X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: outbound, outbound-nordu-net:default, nordu-net:default, base:default, @@RPTN)
X-p0f-Info: os=unknown unknown, link=Ethernet or modem
X-CanIt-Geo: ip=2001:6b0:8::129; country=SE; latitude=59.3247; longitude=18.0560; http://maps.google.com/maps?q=59.3247,18.0560&z=6
X-CanItPRO-Stream: outbound-nordu-net:outbound (inherits from outbound-nordu-net:default, nordu-net:default, base:default)
X-Canit-Stats-ID: 0aTi8UOT5 - 9c0d229af7a7 - 20170509
X-CanIt-Archive-Cluster: PfMRe/vJWMiXwM2YIH5BVExnUnw
Received-SPF: neutral (e-mailfilter02.sunet.se: 2001:6b0:8::129 is neither permitted nor denied by domain linus@sunet.se) receiver=e-mailfilter02.sunet.se; client-ip=2001:6b0:8::129; envelope-from=<linus@sunet.se>; helo=smtp1.nordu.net; identity=mailfrom
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/2sCsL7D0REh4xm7gcyg1dnloX4A>
Subject: Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bis is bad
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list <trans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/trans/>
List-Post: <mailto:trans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 08:56:55 -0000

Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org> wrote
Thu, 4 May 2017 12:21:14 -1000:

> 1. RFC 6979 deterministic signatures are not and cannot be compliant
> with FIPS and other regulations. This means, in particular, that a log
> cannot use the same CABForum-compliant (HSM) ECDSA implementation that
> it could use to sign certificates.

I'm going to expose my lack of knowledge of FIPS and ask why. What makes
RFC 6979 signatures unable to comply with FIPS?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email