IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] Ticket 170

Andrew Ayer <agwa@andrewayer.name> Tue, 09 May 2017 18:38 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 2D727126FDC for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 May 2017 11:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 bIkT1g9mnhkK for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 May 2017 11:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alcazar.beanwood.com (alcazar.beanwood.com [IPv6:2600:3c00:e000:6c::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 938CD12009C for <trans@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 May 2017 11:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=andrewayer.name; s=beanwood20160511; t=1494355107; bh=/3smxAa8svuqy4vkTqE1EE9rdkz6NpAoZaMdqpggFmA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=VsU/LleOO8qjpZmOMpptBCDXhJlwG3iIxKovu6FcfY1E+06EsjpZw4D4OONPTqJIv Z/NPFFzNXjhF7HVSiZsKQ5q7SVHDbQ3axlaSkYsnIo95MzGcWFacsCUDvbvdpANjgl Ju27vTUJouq3ehqMuI/1/7xoYuWs1IVqZgT8XkWKl01yQA53WUZ6Avnl7V1dnQbOcr IXNwKATmSi4u9rsCl9l5U5qh/LaVlAHGxHBHcvMwm/u7N9pAief//GBjTtd+vCqT8H u0LbYFGWsqEjqXe0c/cBUHPVhGvDfJLOGS/NKxM5rWHF1TKsfhLhtwOgMUqdYBq1ei 69oDSVJ5NImTw==
Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 11:38:26 -0700
From: Andrew Ayer <agwa@andrewayer.name>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Cc: "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <20170509113826.69c9822ecca8b7ba833df719@andrewayer.name>
In-Reply-To: <4058f163-97f9-2ba3-8730-f2f2e0b0bb5d@gmail.com>
References: <4058f163-97f9-2ba3-8730-f2f2e0b0bb5d@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/p6HbhiPS_8zW7KKLqLowxwjGDEc>
Subject: Re: [Trans] Ticket 170
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 18:38:29 -0000

On Tue, 9 May 2017 09:50:57 -0700
Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> wrote:

> We have a disagreement on closing ticket 170
> (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/trans/ticket/170),
> on the use of distinct keys for signing SCTs and STHs.

I'm not entirely convinced of the security benefit.

However, speaking as a monitor/auditor implementer, I do not believe
separate keys would add any complexity to implementations - it's just a
matter of storing two keys instead of one and using the right one when
verifying signatures.  Therefore, this proposal seems like a costless
addition to the protocol that might help security.

I'm assuming logs would still be free to use the same key if they
wanted, right?

Regards,
Andrew

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email