Re: [Trans] The RFC6979 requirement in RFC6962-bis is bad
Andrew Ayer <agwa@andrewayer.name> Wed, 24 May 2017 19:33 UTC
Return-Path: <agwa@andrewayer.name>
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 649D61293F5 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 May 2017 12:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=andrewayer.name
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 qjm6mYlvUnoC for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 May 2017 12:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alcazar.beanwood.com (alcazar.beanwood.com [70.85.129.230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3C3F12422F for <trans@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 May 2017 12:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=andrewayer.name; s=beanwood20160511; t=1495654429; bh=1BeHlC7yB7j/pnCOZbBLgRs/EvtTjYouZ8gi9N9uogY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=OA//EfTDRK0/DjdosSWT7mObt+GKNnzNRbBaIn2QoNz/w4jybmwUZ4cHp86cf8mh1 mlSRe7Bicm36qrYMv5Ts2co3UMbOJDQ0STFH+81Ek6i6UoFJXlgLinFnzKo99GNqw/ 1bYU1QehSGkIA8VkJlYqOJwGnfWRYAcogp2dHNYCx+ILmUGvlOBxnvcd7VzrFj3UI7 EoK2y0eZGgPJ6YE2Nwkegj4JtQcacq7k+0PFU+ckkvZZGgrWotNEPZyuYryFIVJlKf eiGkt1kp5U+DSJwC85jUlswG8EjTXHTU33nvuFMP97YgnBnqzx2ePlw5MGDd7vbHBn mljjHeA6Xo8KA==
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 12:33:47 -0700
From: Andrew Ayer <agwa@andrewayer.name>
To: Linus Nordberg <linus@sunet.se>
Cc: Eran Messeri <eranm@google.com>, "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <20170524123347.a149b03ded187d3188906713@andrewayer.name>
In-Reply-To: <871srhvunx.fsf@nordberg.se>
References: <CAFewVt5z3sq-Occ1VaHeNeBvt1yyCM_3_nssZSu2f_PBEL4SFQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+cU71kBmKsxyvsmpuF6UAzP+fict3v62gEq_iKY-O2P07ZRLw@mail.gmail.com> <87pofiif6g.fsf@nordberg.se> <CA+cU71kVV_o30p-+dGdLT9Hpg+iiW5KgG-9xJD9iVCEHwhLg6w@mail.gmail.com> <CALzYgEeHpxRSxpQTSPasdahWXdzV8bGMV_R4HM02oscHrm8TWw@mail.gmail.com> <87inl25r8l.fsf@nordberg.se> <CALzYgEdunZXRmGtStGhfJHdHeytk3etYLNtAvFgf3bN2-6EyXQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALzYgEeCVnWG19F79OSwCC+iPArZbGGaBZYrKP2MWWdEDGVHVg@mail.gmail.com> <871srhvunx.fsf@nordberg.se>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/f6XJQAqTs4jtPw6DqpHvfDgJfEA>
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: Wed, 24 May 2017 19:33:51 -0000
On Mon, 22 May 2017 16:21:54 +0200 Linus Nordberg <linus@sunet.se> wrote: > Hi, > > It should be clear by now that I'd be sad if 6962bis would allow logs to > return a different stream of bytes for the same ingoing parameters, for > SCTs and STHs, but more interesting would be to hear other wg members > views on the balance we're trying to strike. I would also be sad - particularly in the case of STHs. I may be willing to give up mandatory consistent SCT signatures, since privacy with SCTs might be a lost cause anyways, and because it's hard for logs to ensure consistent SCT signatures without using deterministic signatures (due to the need to issue SCTs from many different frontends). However, it doesn't seem hard for logs to have consistent STH signatures. > Regarding current deployment, are there any 6269bis logs deployed yet? I don't know of any. However, it may be interesting to note that of the 31 publicly-known RFC6962 logs[1], all but two (Clicky and Behind the Sofa) return the same signature for repeated get-sth requests, which suggests that this is not a difficult requirement for STHs. The two logs which return a new signature for each get-sth request are running Trillian. It would be interesting to hear from the Trillian developers why Trillian behaves this way and whether it would be difficult to persist STH signatures as other implementations do. > Regarding correctness vs. completeness, what in -24 is incorrect with > this regard? > > Regarding added cost of implementation, using RSA is an option. > > Regarding gossip unclearity, the suggested change risks making it harder > to get STH gossip going. Agreed. We may never know how necessary consistent STH signatures are if attempts to experiment with STH gossip are stillborn due to privacy concerns. It would make more sense to start out with a strong requirement, and loosen it later if it turns out to be unnecessary. Regards, Andrew [1] https://sslmate.com/labs/ct_ecosystem/ecosystem.html
- [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