IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> Mon, 12 December 2011 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir@checkpoint.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 9BF6921F8AFC for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:23:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.576
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 xzsyCuXJF8j8 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:23:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from michael.checkpoint.com (smtp.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A57221F8AFD for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:23:23 -0800 (PST)
X-CheckPoint: {4EE65352-0-1B221DC2-1FFFF}
Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com (il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.26]) by michael.checkpoint.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pBCJNKvB023179; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:23:20 +0200
Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) by il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) with mapi; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:23:20 +0200
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
To: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:23:18 +0200
Thread-Topic: [websec] A few comments on draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning
Thread-Index: Acy5A4ES6wIWN6dYQROJTILXRvnbZw==
Message-ID: <08236326-850C-4C58-B506-EBB53AC6FCB5@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> <4EE65284.2060807@att.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EE65284.2060807@att.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful
x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 19:23:24 -0000

On Dec 12, 2011, at 9:14 PM, Tony Hansen wrote:

> 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.

Yeah, me too. But I haven't seen it used in certificates or anything else. I also never measured the performance with either 32- or 64-bit code, and I don't see people rushing to write "HMAC-SHA2-512/256 and its use in IPsec/TLS/SSH/whatever". Last time I checked, it wasn't in OpenSSL either.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email