Very possible that I'm missing the point here. Still, since openssl-1_0_2 does ECDH, and it exposes ECDSA to external engine(s), how difficult would it be to add ECDH exposure? I suspect - a good deal easier than getting 1.1 replace 1.0.x as the de-facto deployment standard.
Plus, by this time there already are (and reasonably common) tokens that support ECDH, other packages that do ECDH, and people (like myself :-) willing to test it and offer minor enhancements. Another point I seem to be missing - if what's necessary to implement ECDH in an external engine is missing from 1_0_2 - how could Alexander write a (presumably) working ECDH engine for 1_0_2? If he could do it, why can't engine_pkcs11 be extended to do the same? Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network. From: Douglas E Engert Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 14:59 To: openssl-dev@openssl.org Reply To: openssl-dev@openssl.org Subject: Re: [openssl-dev] ECDH engine You are missing the point. OpenSSL-1.0.2 only exposed ECDSA, not ECDH to external engines. It took years to even get ECDSA exposed. OpenSSL approach to support this is OpenSSL-1.1 that does a lot of other things. But that was there approach. Its their package. From working package to distribution always takes several years... On 1/20/2016 1:34 PM, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL wrote: Probably it was one of the main reasons why we didn't use pkcs11 for ATECC508A and wrote an engine instead I still argue with the approach (IMHO nobody needs yet another limited engine), but constraining ECC additions to 1.1 does not make any sense to me. 1.0.2 is going to be around for a quite a while. A lot of applications won’t migrate to 1.1 quickly – a few years would be a good/reasonable/safe bet. To restrict this work to 1.1 means pushing this basic capability off by (realistically) several years. Most people can’t/won't deploy openssl-1.1 as long as it interferes with the majority of the applications they or their OS is using, is not good. I for one won’t be able to use 1.1 in practice until it becomes the embraced standard and software such as Macports port set is moved to support it. I’m 100% sure there are many more of us in this bus, on different OS (e.g., it looks like Ubuntu is even worse off than Macports). On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL <u...@ll.mit.edu> wrote: Are you saying it won't work on OpenSSL_1_0_2-stable?! Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network. From: Douglas E Engert Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 14:07 To: openssl-dev@openssl.org Reply To: openssl-dev@openssl.org Subject: Re: [openssl-dev] ECDH engine Patches are underdevelopment for OpenSC's libp11 and engine_pkcs11 to support ECDH. There are waiting for OpenSSL-1.1 to be come stable and some minor bug fixes. Testing is proceeding using OpenSSL-1.1-pre2 today. OpenSSL-1.1 is needed because it exposes the functions needed to use ECDH from an external engine i.e. the OPenSC engine_pkcs11. https://github.com/OpenSC/libp11/issues/52 https://github.com/dengert/libp11/tree/prep-openssl-1.1 https://github.com/dengert/engine_pkcs11/tree/prep-openssl-1.1 In addition to a major rewrite of combining the ECDSA_METHOD and ECDH_METHOD into an C_KEY_METHOD, OpenSSL-1.1 introduces a lot of changes, mainly because it hides many of the structures that have been exposed in the past. This causes a major rewrite of code to use functions to access these structures. Although OpenSC could still use an older version of OpenSSL, there is also underway changes for OpenSC to use OpenSSL-1.1: https://github.com/OpenSC/OpenSC/pull/654 https://github.com/dengert/OpenSC/tree/prep-openssl-1.1 On 1/20/2016 12:02 PM, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL wrote: I forgot to add that OpenSSL-1_0-2-stable with the current (Github master) engine-pkcs11, libp11, and OpenSC successfully does ECDSA with keys on the token (tested for ECC256 and ECC384). OpenSC tools successfully derive (i.e., implement ECDH1_DERIVE). I'm waiting for libp11 and engine_pkcs11 to add this capability. Ideally this is where your code would plug in, and complete the circle. As it currently is, a separate Atmel-specific ECC-specific engine is of a limited usefulness. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network. From: Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 12:46 To: openssl-dev@openssl.org Reply To: openssl-dev@openssl.org Subject: Re: [openssl-dev] ECDH engine The ATECC508A is a chip. There are few USB devices built by Atmel on its base. Or you can use the chip directly over I2C (that many people like to do). You can follow the links that we posted on the ATECCX08 Engine repository WiKi to learn about the chip. I see, thanks. Well, our first indent was to use the pksc11 library. But it didn't go to well for many reasons. I should go back for several months to collect these reasons but I think the main reason was that ATECC508A hardware is based on ECC-256 algorithms while pkcs11 is originally written for RSA - the overhead was looking too high (many ATECC508 customers are using limited hardware and want direct I2C connection to the chip). There are a few hardware tokens (USB-pluggable), e.g. Yubikey, that support ECC256 and (in case of Yubikey 4) ECC384. But let's talk about pkcs11. Can you point me to the set of documentation for EC-DERIVE? It may be a good time now to add the ATECC508 support to there. Honestly, I’m more interested in adding ECDH support – assuming that it would also serve ATECC508, rather than working on ATECC508B and hoping that perhaps it would be usable for other ECC-capable tokens. Here’s the PKCS#11 spec http://docs.oasis-open.org/pkcs11/pkcs11-curr/v2.40/pkcs11-curr-v2.40.pdf, which covers ECDH including ECDH1_DERIVE and ECDH1_COFACTOR_DERIVE. I think older versions (like v2.20) have more content, but this is the current one. Hope it helps. P.S. At this time I’m standing by my original opinion – that a better way is incorporating ECDH1_*DERIVE in libp11 and engine_pkcs11, rather than creating an engine specifically for one chip that add uncertainly of non-interoperability with other chips/tokens. On Jan 20, 2016, at 8:11 AM, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL <u...@ll.mit.edu> wrote: What is this Atmel x508x? Is it a chip? Is it a token/smartcard? Is it accessible via PKCS#11 at all? Is it accessible by/via OpenSC? I am trying to figure why such a generic and useful set of ECC operations (Sign, Derive) is implementation-limited to one single <whatever>. A much better solution to me would be adding EC-DERIVE to engine_pkcs11, and automatically get all the tokens covered. Since I'm probably missing something, could you please educate me? Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network. From: Alexander Gostrer Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 10:47 To: Dr. Stephen Henson Reply To: openssl-dev@openssl.org Cc: openssl-dev@openssl.org Subject: Re: [openssl-dev] ECDH engine Hi Steve, And here is the ENGINE implementation for Atmel ATECC508A with few small patches to OpenSSL_1_0_2-stable: https://github.com/AtmelCSO/cryptoauth-openssl-engine Your comments are welcome. Regards, Alex. On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Dr. Stephen Henson <st...@openssl.org> wrote: On Fri, Dec 18, 2015, Alexander Gostrer wrote: > Hi Steve, > > John and I completed writing an ECDH engine based on the > OpenSSL_1_0_2-stable branch. We were planning to expand it to the master > but found some major changes made by you recently. What is the status of > this task? Is it stable enough to follow it? Are you planning another > changes? Is there a design document that we can use in our work? > The version in master shouldn't change much any more. Documentation will be available in the near future. The changes were meant to remove some of the weird "quirks" of ECC compared to other algortihms and to permit future expansion to a wider range of curves. In the meantime it shouldn't be too hard to follow how the new code works. Instead of separate ECDH/ECDSA methods with weird locking and ex_data and minimal ENGINE support everything is combined into a single EC_KEY_METHOD which can contain ECDSA, ECDH and key generation (something which was impossible with the old code) and be tied directly to an ENGINE. Most of the primary APIs such as ECDH_compute_key can be redirected directly through an engine supplied function in EC_KEY_METHOD. Having said that the code is very new and may have the odd bug that needs to be fixed. If you have any problems let me know and I'll look into them. Steve. -- Dr Stephen N. Henson. OpenSSL project core developer. Commercial tech support now available see: http://www.openssl.org _______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev _______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev -- Douglas E. Engert <deeng...@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev _______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev -- Douglas E. Engert <deeng...@gmail.com>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
