I support rapid adoption, if only based on general principles, as elaborated 
below.

 

***

 

I have not studied the draft in detail, but I think that strongest-link 
security is important to allow, the sooner the better, for those that can 
afford it, I think the benefit is worth cost.

 

I think that the how-to of strongest-link is straightforward enough to start 
working on it, and I trust the draft authors to have done a good job at it.  
Any subtleties or optimizations of strongest-link crypto can be perfected as 
they arise.

 

I would also favor using both ECC and PQC, (a) _after_ NIST PQC is done, (b) 
_before_ a Shor-capable QC arrives.  I’m hoping the time of (a) < (b), and 
therefore hybrid should be ready to roll out.

 

I would also favor adding PQC support to TLS _before_ even NIST PQC is done, 
then just switching over to NIST choices at the time, even though this seems 
not to be the interpretation consensus opinion, e.g. CFRG opted to wait for 
NIST.  I agree waiting for NIST is sensible, if one want the best PQC 
protection, but not to the point of delaying having any PQC protection, see 
next point.

 

Getting details right is a known difficulty, with mistakes inevitable.  Haste 
makes waste, sure, but delay is deadly, so let’s get to debugging the details 
right away.  Bugs are a nuisance, but better than nothing.

 

I realize that anybody worried about Shor-capable QC, can add a PQC out-of-band 
to official TLS, but I understand TLS to offer many benefits as security 
protocol, such that adding in PQC would create synergy (excuse my word choice 
here).

 

I think “hybrid” is the wrong word.  CFRG has adopted another document where 
“hybrid” means weakest-link.  Can we choose clearer words?  I like “compound”, 
but strongest-link, and defense-in-depth are clearer at the price of being 
longer.  (I prefer hybrid to synergy, of course!)

 

General arguments that attackers will find other system weaknesses than 
directly attacking crypto are valid, but these arguments already rely on good 
crypto, and are invalid as an excuse to use weaker crypto, to stop improving 
crypto.

 

Best regards,

​​​​​

Dan Brown

BlackBerry

 

From: TLS <tls-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Joseph Salowey
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2020 12:13 PM
To: <tls@ietf.org> <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: [TLS] Call for Adoption: draft-stebila-tls-hybrid-design

 

The authors of "Hybrid Key Exchange" have asked for adoption of their draft as 
a WG item.  Please state whether you support adoption of this draft as a WG 
item by posting a message to the TLS list by 2359 UTC 28 February 2020..  
Please include any additional information that is helpful in understanding your 
position.

NOTE:
If the draft is adopted, the working group has change control over the draft 
and the timing of its progression.  This means the document does not have to be 
perfect as the working group can and will make changes.  Adopting the draft 
means the working group thinks the topic is a good idea and the draft is a good 
place to start the work.  

Thanks,
Chris, Joe, and Sean

[0]  
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dstebila-2Dtls-2Dhybrid-2Ddesign_&d=DwMFaQ&c=yzoHOc_ZK-sxl-kfGNSEvlJYanssXN3q-lhj0sp26wE&r=qkpbVDRj7zlSRVql-UonsW647lYqnsrbXizKI6MgkEw&m=YGrWhrwPJMcluBHfaPE8h_pponmVeM1dfJFrLKO-Y2c&s=QH64ybNj9x2PM84z-J18Fb113WNyH8szhQxy-UzKDZc&e=>
 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stebila-tls-hybrid-design/

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential 
information, privileged material (including material protected by the 
solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public 
information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended 
recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, 
please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your 
system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission 
by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

Reply via email to