On Friday 04 March 2016 13:49:11 Scott Fluhrer wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: TLS [mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nikos > > Mavrogiannopoulos > > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 3:10 AM > > To: Hanno Böck; Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL; tls@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [TLS] RSA-PSS in TLS 1.3 > > > > On Thu, 2016-03-03 at 17:11 +0100, Hanno Böck wrote: > > > > > It may be worth asking the authors what's their opinion of FDH vs > > > > > > > PSS > > > > in view of the state of the art *today*. > > > > > > You may do that, but I doubt that changes much. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think FDH really is not an option at all here. It may very well > > > be > > > that there are better ways to do RSA-padding, but I don't think > > > that > > > this is viable for TLS 1.3 (and I don't think FDH is better). > > > PSS has an RFC (3447) and has been thoroughly analyzed by > > > research. I think there has been far less analyzing effort > > > towards FDH (or any other construction) and it is not in any way > > > specified in a standards document. If one would want to use FDH > > > or anything else one would imho first have to go through some > > > standardization process (which could be CFRG or NIST or someone > > > else) and call for a thorough analysis of it by the cryptographic > > > community. Which would take at least a couple of years. > > > > > > > > > > > > Given that there probably is no long term future for RSA anyway > > > (people want ECC and postquantum is ahead) I doubt anything else > > > than the primitives we already have in standards will ever be > > > viable.> > > > > On the contrary. If we have a future with quantum computers > > available, the only thing that we have now and would work is RSA > > with larger keys, not ECC. > > RSA isn't *that* much more secure against a Quantum Computer than ECC. > It would appear to take a larger Quantum Computer to break RSA than > it would to break ECC (for reasonable moduli/curve sizes), however > not that much more. It is possible that, at one stage, we'll be able > to build a QC that's just large enough to break EC curves, but not > larger RSA keys - however, we would be likely to be able to scale up > our QC to be a bit larger; possibly in a few months, quite likely in > a year or two. Hence, moving back to RSA would appear likely to buy > us only a short window... > I agree with Hanno; if we're interested in defending against a Quantum > Computer, post Quantum algorithms are the way to go
except that using RSA keys nearly an order of magnitude larger than the biggest ECC curve that's widely supported (secp384) is the current recommended minimum by ENISA and long term minimum by NIST (3072). Using keys 5 times larger still is not impossible, so while it may not buy us extra 20 years after ECC is broken, 10 years is not impossible and 5 is almost certain (if Moore's law holds for quantum computers). It's not much, but it may be enough to make a difference. -- Regards, Hubert Kario Senior Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team Web: www.cz.redhat.com Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 99/71, 612 45, Brno, Czech Republic
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
