On Monday, May 11, 2015 12:04:19 PM Douglas Otis wrote:
> On 5/11/15 10:06 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > RFC 6376 (which I think is the latest) includes:
> >> 3.3.3.  Key Sizes
> >> 
> >>    Selecting appropriate key sizes is a trade-off between cost,
> >>    performance, and risk.  Since short RSA keys more easily succumb to
> >>    off-line attacks, Signers MUST use RSA keys of at least 1024 bits for
> >>    long-lived keys.  Verifiers MUST be able to validate signatures with
> >>    keys ranging from 512 bits to 2048 bits, and they MAY be able to
> >>    validate signatures with larger keys.  Verifier policies may use the
> >>    length of the signing key as one metric for determining whether a
> >>    signature is acceptable.
> > 
> > Since receivers have no good way of knowing what keys are long-lived,
> > there's no way on the receiver side to reliably determine if a key
> > shorter than 1024 bits is being appropriately used or not.  I think it's
> > time to kill keys shorter than 1024 bits dead.  It's not like the risks
> > associated with them are new [1].
> > 
> > I propose a short draft that updates 6376 to say MUST use at least 1024
> > bits and setting that as the minimum size verifiers must be able to
> > validate.  I'm volunteering to write it if people agree it's appropriate.
> > 
> > Scott K
> > 
> > 
> > [1] http://www.wired.com/2012/10/dkim-vulnerability-widespread/
>
> Dear Scott,
> 
> Signatures normally offer options not easily supported by
> DKIM.  One being use of a binary keys, rather than base64.
> Indeed shorter keys were a mistake.  What other mistakes
> should be corrected?  I can name a few.

I'm not particularly interested in a comprehensive update to DKIM.  Time has 
passed.  Moore's Law has operated.  It's time to change the minimum key size 
(past time, IMO).  I'd much rather get that done as I don't think it will be 
controversial rather than get into a broader debate that might get bogged 
down.

Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

Reply via email to