IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Linus Nordberg <linus@sunet.se> Mon, 08 May 2017 22:46 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 3BF2012894A for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 May 2017 15:46:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 70eI56HM2XXt for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 May 2017 15:46:21 -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 C75A0124BE8 for <trans@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 May 2017 15:46:17 -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 v48MkBCA002804 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 9 May 2017 00:46:11 +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 v48Mk4oe004313 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 8 May 2017 22:46:09 GMT
From: Linus Nordberg <linus@sunet.se>
To: Andrew Ayer <agwa@andrewayer.name>
Cc: trans@ietf.org
Organization: Sunet
References: <CAFewVt5z3sq-Occ1VaHeNeBvt1yyCM_3_nssZSu2f_PBEL4SFQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170508111141.2ad103252b01cf48b5e988c8@andrewayer.name>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 00:46:11 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20170508111141.2ad103252b01cf48b5e988c8@andrewayer.name> (Andrew Ayer's message of "Mon, 8 May 2017 11:11:41 -0700")
Message-ID: <87tw4vj7bg.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: 0aThWKbA8 - d8e70ffd8b22 - 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/nZvgFulyWT3XR3NQM8D8X0NE7JM>
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: Mon, 08 May 2017 22:46:24 -0000

Andrew Ayer <agwa@andrewayer.name> wrote
Mon, 8 May 2017 11:11:41 -0700:

> On Thu, 4 May 2017 12:21:14 -1000
> Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org> wrote:
>
>> Draft 24 of rfc6962-bis says that the log must use RFC 6979 for ECDSA
>> signatures. However, the requirement to use RFC 6979 is problematic
>> for several reasons, noted below. I think this group should reconsider
>> if the fingerprinting threat that motivated the requirement for
>> deterministic signatures is significant enough to overcome these
>> problems.
>
> I think preventing fingerprinting is important.  I suggest we loosen
> the requirement on logs.  Logs should still be forbidden from producing
> more than one distinct signature for any given STH or SCT, but we
> shouldn't specify how logs must satisfy this requirement.

+1

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email