On 12/17/2013 9:20 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> sigh. "weakest link" analysis is clearly useful, and just as
> clearly not the only analytic tool to use.
I don't understand your position. First you're saying, "we currently
have 112 bits of keyspace, we need at least 128," and then you're saying
that you want to see the system evened out -- but the difference between
a 128-bit keyspace and a 256-bit keyspace is so enormous that you might
as well be talking about a 112-bit keyspace and a 256-bit keyspace.
If a 3072-bit key makes you happy and makes you feel it's "evened out,"
well, my question is -- why? 256 bit keyspace versus 112 is not much
different from 256 bit versus 128.
> Your argument in response seems to be "whoa! if we improve them all
> the way to the symmetric cipher length it would be computationally
> infeasible!"
No. My argument is that your reasoning is incoherent. If you want to
even out the system -- or, as you advocated later, make the asymmetric
component stronger than the symmetric component -- the *only possible*
interpretation is that you're advocating for at least RSA-15000. If you
truly believe the asymmetric component should be stronger, you're
advocating for RSA-30000.
I don't think that's what you want. (And I note that you have
explicitly repudiated that notion.) And since I think that's not what
you want, that means I have to conclude your reasoning is faulty.
> so, how much weaker are you ok with?
At least 128 bits of keyspace less, obviously. And when weighed in that
respect, whether we're talking about 128 bits or 140 bits is really
quite irrelevant.
That's why we need to focus on keeping each component at or greater than
our minimum specification. 112 bits of keyspace is a reasonable minimum
for the time being; therefore, I'm happy with the current defaults. I
don't want to see them used for the next ten years, mind you, but I
absolutely reject the fierce moral urgency of immediate change that you
seem to be subscribing to.
> (i'm glad you still feel they're trustworthy, even in the context of
> them having issued a deliberately bad RNG, and their keylength
> recommendations being weaker than everyone else's!)
That's a naked slander against NIST. You're better than that, Daniel.
No one, and I emphasize *no one*, has presented any evidence that NIST
issued a deliberately bad PRNG, or for that matter whether Dual_EC_DRBG
is even backdoored. _Wired_ magazine wrote of it,
A surprising uncertainty is still smouldering over
whether Dual_EC_DRBG really is backdoored. The _Times_,
crypto experts note, hasn't released the memos that
purport to prove the existence of a backdoor, and the
paper's direct quotes from the classified documents
don't mention any backdoor in the algorithm or efforts
by the NSA to weaken it or the standard. They only
discuss efforts to push the standard through committees
for approval.
Jon Callas, the CTO of Silent Circle ... saw the
presentation by Shumow. He says he wasn't alarmed by
it at the time and still has doubts that what was
exposed was actually a backdoor, in part because the
algorithm is so badly done. "If [NSA] spent $250
million weakening the standard and this is the best
that they could do, then we have nothing to fear from
them," he says. "Because this was really ham-fisted.
When you put on your conspiratorial hat about what the
NSA would be doing, you would expect something more
devious, Machiavellian... and this thing is just
laughably bad. This is Boris and Natasha sort of
stuff."
Indeed, the Microsoft presenters themselves -- who
declined to comment for this article -- didn't press
the backdoor theory in their talk. They didn't mention
NSA at all, and went out of their way to avoid accusing
NIST of anything. "WE ARE NOT SAYING: NIST
intentionally put a back door in this PRNG," read the
last slide of their deck.
The Microsoft manager who spoke with WIRED on
condition of anonymity thinks the provocative title of
the 2007 presentation overstates the issue with the
algorithm and is being misinterpreted -- that perhaps
reporters at the _Times_ read something in a classified
document showing that the NSA worked on the algorithm
and pushed it through the standards process, and quickly
took it as proof that the title of the 2007 talk had
been right to call the weakness in the standard and the
algorithm a backdoor.
...
[Schneier] adds that the uncertainty around the algorithm
and the standard is the worst part of the whole matter.
"This is the worst problem that the NSA has done,"
Schneier says. "They have so undermined the fundamental
trust in the internet, that we don't know what to trust.
We have to suspect everything. We're never sure. That's
the greatest damage."
(Link: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/nsa-backdoor/all/ )
I emphatically agree there's a lot of uncertainty around Dual_EC_DRBG.
It is possible it was subverted -- but it's also possible it wasn't.
It's possible it was subverted, NIST knew of the subversion, and
approved the standard anyway -- but it's also possible NIST was caught
unawares. It's possible that... etc.
Claiming that they offered a *deliberately bad* PRNG is, quite frankly,
a slander. There is no certainty there. There isn't even much in the
way of evidence. There is a possibility. Let's not go about declaring
NIST guilty based on nothing more than the possibility of wrongdoing.
> Of course when ECC is available, we may want to shift to ECC. But
> ECC is not currently available, and even when it becomes available,
> RSA will be the dominant key type for years.
Sure. That's because we can't retroactively change keys that have
already been made. Even if we adopt your recommendation of moving to
RSA-3072 immediately, RSA-2048 will still be the dominant key type for
years.
> This is a terrible argument for not improving the default RSA key
> length today.
I think it's a great one. One of the best things about GnuPG has been
its stability. Changing the defaults is not something to be done
lightly. Doing so invalidates FAQs and tutorials, it forces people to
edit their scripts, it causes uncertainty and doubt and "why did you
change...?" on the mailing lists. Changing to RSA-3072 now, and then to
ECC in nine months or a year, is (IMO) unwise. "Why are you changing
the defaults again? Did you make a mistake the last time?"
Etc., etc. Better to wait until ECC is ready, make a single change to
the defaults, and keep the transition crisp and clean.
> It costs very little to change the default, and it signals the user
> community that we take the existence of well-funded adversaries
> seriously.
I think GnuPG has already clearly established its reputation in that field.
> We're engineers talking about building safety and security
> infrastructure here.
Yes -- and part of that is recognizing when the additional expense to
mitigate a risk is greater than the risk itself. I'm sure we could
reduce airplane crashes by 90% if we were to overengineer airplanes so
much that a ticket cost a million dollars, but we don't do that.
You want perfection. You're not going to get it. It's like trying to
build a bridge that simply will not collapse, period, no matter how
large a weight is moved over it.
What I want instead is a quality bridge, one that's well-inspected, and
has a big sign a half-kilometer out reading, "Maximum Load 10,000kg".
That, we can do pretty easily.
_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
