IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [websec] A few comments on draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning

Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> Mon, 12 December 2011 19:14 UTC

Return-Path: <tony@att.com>
X-Original-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D5BE21F850D for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:14:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.49
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.110, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1tTkoE2CTbA7 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:14:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88C7721F84F9 for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:14:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-15.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1323717272!5430909!1
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145]
X-StarScan-Version: 6.4.3; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 20552 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2011 19:14:33 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-15.tower-119.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 12 Dec 2011 19:14:33 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pBCJF07f021330 for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:15:01 -0500
Received: from sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (sflint01.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.228]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pBCJEt2j021219 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:14:56 -0500
Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by sflint01.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:14:19 -0500
Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBCJEJII002052 for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:14:19 -0500
Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBCJEDRT001848 for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:14:13 -0500
Received: from [135.91.110.247] (ds135-91-110-247.dhcps.ugn.att.com[135.91.110.247]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20111212191252gw100e4lphe> (Authid: tony); Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:12:52 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [135.91.110.247]
Message-ID: <4EE65284.2060807@att.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:14:12 -0500
From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
References: <7C746AD7-9448-4883-9A30-85A2E72C8AF5@gmail.com> <32ED4792-4720-471A-A074-ECDAA172CC47@vpnc.org> <39133E20-4136-4AA4-B7C6-48DC1299109E@checkpoint.com> <430F2576-C8CB-4F2C-A3A3-BADDE4600A06@vpnc.org> <4EE62342.9030303@extendedsubset.com> <601A5BD0-2ED5-4F97-9B1E-EF355D95B63E@checkpoint.com>
In-Reply-To: <601A5BD0-2ED5-4F97-9B1E-EF355D95B63E@checkpoint.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-RSA-Action: allow
Cc: IETF WebSec WG <websec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [websec] A few comments on draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning
X-BeenThere: websec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Web Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport <websec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec>
List-Post: <mailto:websec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:14:35 -0000

On 12/12/2011 1:55 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Marsh Ray wrote:
>
>> It's already somewhat ambiguous now that NIST has
>> defined SHA[-2]-512/256.
>>
>> http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsDrafts.html#fips-180-4
> Then that is what it must be called: "sha2-512/256". I think that's a legal string in HTTP headers.
>
> Supposedly this is faster on 64-bit applications. I wonder if that is true in practice. So far, I have seen no implementations of this hash function.

I've done a complete bit-level implementation. It's a straight-forward 
modification to RFC 6234.

     Tony Hansen
     tony@att.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email