Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Recommend RFC6979 deterministic ECDSA #408

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

ctz
Copy link
Contributor

@ctz ctz commented Jan 25, 2016

In the signing details section, we warn and then recommend
RFC6979.

In the crypto pitfalls section, reiterate and try
to impress the importance of getting this right.

@@ -796,7 +797,9 @@ of the digest output. Note that previous versions of TLS used RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5,
not RSASSA-PSS.

All ECDSA computations MUST be performed according to ANSI X9.62 {{X962}}
or its successors. Data to be signed/verified is hashed, and the
or its successors. The utmost care must be taken to choose high-entropy
"k" values; use of {{RFC6979}} Deterministic ECDSA is RECOMMENDED to ensure this.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

put the name before the ref ("Deterministic ECDSA {{RFC6979}}" instead of above)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done in 2b59c72, cheers!

In the signing details section, we warn and then recommend
RFC6979.

In the crypto pitfalls section, reiterate and try
to impress the importance of getting this right.
countermeasure is described in {{RFC6979}}.
The impact of a failure here is key material disclosure, and in TLS the
keys involved are typically high value: long-term, externally certified
and the root of endpoint authentication.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These last 3 lines should probably be cut, as this is a bit long and overly redundant.

Also, the other bullet points are in the form of a question, and this isn't (just a nitpick, though).

@ekr ekr closed this Jul 7, 2016
ekr added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 7, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants