Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bis is bad
Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org> Fri, 05 May 2017 19:39 UTC
Return-Path: <brian@briansmith.org>
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 78FC112940C for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 May 2017 12:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=briansmith-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 6g67qJV_6F9r for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 May 2017 12:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x232.google.com (mail-it0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA7CD12878D for <trans@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 May 2017 12:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x232.google.com with SMTP id x188so14456484itb.0 for <trans@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 May 2017 12:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=briansmith-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=EsFouX9mffJyHVJ+uLv7eVWuiVc05sMwSbX/oeH07k4=; b=Fc6DNKMyiz7Csh/YSmQjRiS35T/zgnqCBKtQwealIQ8HcFJMDmxI2O4pkDg4m/wsWm JniJKh2a04r0jNkGxkGKQZW11nez/y+WNt29cGDrUx9ig7ZKSLG4S92oym9DQyyhlZ41 fjgDxugrhD5CPhh7zixfTEtMBGsWBjIpEnP1/QDCLhuCrS9IPefsgOM8XWvwTpqdDKAe jnfE7qyQsLmQD3UlqgoqyvBmkKlkwIyr/8IQracssmUYntz2RZfYBu884UF5tZJqWsKv HPEkIN/JsjnSp8wS3oSN8Vf5NQYAwUZl2zr8gaelxBdbF5X2XVqHAT/ABywdtLsTu09g zXAQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=EsFouX9mffJyHVJ+uLv7eVWuiVc05sMwSbX/oeH07k4=; b=O1Q0i4CY83dhXZ7f+LlZ2F4FIEQcpebuRwnD1NQQkmF0DMzhjt4CezLLZiRkY1vUMK o1mIe9ANnnchJGvIAMa7kocfmPf/2wItPCG6bo3VYyuR/LBiBaUjkWn7zHK8t/zwJc6j 1cFZ05ukzGzQPStpat/D4M4DTNmFLRhmfbqOsINKg7q6jiqysA472WyoAjrMqn0kjSVw 7v3SnMot/Ifgkb4oIgVWflJNHnbDgt6KnssgHhJIk3wuNfjbmPIyTbnsEqyv63cEBKt6 GqLkdq8ezGsK7+MdvaZ6Jf5NnYGtx95ArMaizJ/p/gFduOlLcSK1UnlgxKVJe7FZASf5 ND/g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4i3ElJgfnLBfOoCyjemvEwop5+p/w7R0XDdTbNC+uRYGB+32V6 6XvRfKyn2rDR+dNOp8B5352gcfeajUav
X-Received: by 10.36.124.85 with SMTP id a82mr10284941itd.90.1494013177969; Fri, 05 May 2017 12:39:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.36.77.84 with HTTP; Fri, 5 May 2017 12:39:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAFewVt5z3sq-Occ1VaHeNeBvt1yyCM_3_nssZSu2f_PBEL4SFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFewVt5z3sq-Occ1VaHeNeBvt1yyCM_3_nssZSu2f_PBEL4SFQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 09:39:37 -1000
Message-ID: <CAFewVt7p6D+o2izvrNoAFKDn8P+wPOSQ-Uhn=wLAB3VihCWM0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/eqcPgeBGmoFzqZAVA2athMXz-T4>
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: Fri, 05 May 2017 19:39:40 -0000
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org> wrote: > [0] https://crypto.stackexchange.com/a/42551 (I can't find the > original citation for what the Bitcoin people said.) I found it: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/36127/problems-with-deterministic-ecdsa-based-on-rfc6979-in-bitcoin#comment42214_36142 Cheers, Brian -- https://briansmith.org/
- [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bis is… Brian Smith
- Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bi… Eran Messeri
- Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bi… Brian Smith
- Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bi… Rob Stradling
- Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bi… Tom Ritter
- Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bi… Andrew Ayer
- Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bi… Linus Nordberg
- [Trans] What logs are storing (was: The RFC6979 r… Linus Nordberg
- Re: [Trans] What logs are storing (was: The RFC69… Andrew Ayer
- Re: [Trans] What logs are storing Linus Nordberg
- Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bi… Linus Nordberg
- Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bi… Linus Nordberg
- Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bi… Linus Nordberg
- Re: [Trans] What logs are storing (was: The RFC69… Eran Messeri
- Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bi… Tom Ritter
- Re: [Trans] What logs are storing (was: The RFC69… Al Cutter
- Re: [Trans] What logs are storing (was: The RFC69… Andrew Ayer
- Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bi… Eran Messeri
- Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bi… Brian Smith
- Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bi… Linus Nordberg
- Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bi… Eran Messeri
- Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bi… Eran Messeri
- Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bi… Linus Nordberg
- Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bi… Gary Belvin
- Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bi… Linus Nordberg
- Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bi… Eran Messeri
- Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bi… Linus Nordberg
- Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bi… Andrew Ayer
- Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bi… Al Cutter