[Last-Call] Re: [secdir] SECDIR Last Call review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis-01

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Donald:

Thanks for the review.

> All my comments below are minor to very minor.
> 
> Section 6, Security Considerations, 1st paragraph. Why is it that
> compromise of the private keys only "may" lead to the ability to
> forge? "May" seems right for something like "result in forged
> signatures" but doesn't compromise of the private key lead pretty
> certainly to the *ability* to forge a signature?

I changed "may" to "will" in my edit buffer.

> Somehow the presence of "non-volatile" is a bit jarring. I understand
> that you are talking about exceptional problems but perhaps it would
> be good to also say the "volatile" storage must not be used?

I do not agree.  NIST has a specification of HSS/LMS that prohibits backup, and some vendors are pushing back against that wording.  Here, I have tried to explain the consequences of various implementation choices without imposing any specific requirements.

> Section 1.3, 3rd paragraph: Would it be reasonable to add just before
> the comma in the first sentence "but on the difficulty of finding
> pre-images of a strong hash function" or something like that? While I
> believe it, is there a reference for the "considered to be
> post-quantum secure" statement?

How about:

   Since the HSS/LMS signature algorithm does not depend on the
   difficulty of discrete logarithms or factoring, but on a
   second-preimage-resistant cryptographic hash function, the HSS/LMS
   signature algorithm is considered to be post-quantum secure.

Section 1.1 of RFC 8554 contains a CFRG Note on Post-Quantum Cryptography.  Given the vast number of references to this RFC, I think that part is covered. 

> Section 2.1, last sentence: While it is somewhat a matter of taste,
> arguably, except in the most surprising cases, the words "Note that"
> are mostly superfluous noise. (Ditto for two more "Note that"s in
> Section 4.)

Agree.  However, it seems awkward to start a sentence with the name of a variable.

I will remove the ones in Section 3.3 and Section 4.

Russ
-- 
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux