- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 11:58:48 -0400
- To: EKR <ekr@rtfm.com>
- Cc: tgindin@us.ibm.com, "IETF/W3C XML-DSig WG" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 08:32 AM 5/8/00 -0700, EKR wrote: >tgindin@us.ibm.com writes: >> I think we should change, and not solely for consistency reasons. >> Although the DSS specifies SHA-1, it would be fairly easy to use a DSA key >> with RIPEMD-160, and people might well call that signature algorithm >> "dsa-ripe". >We've been over this ground a number of times already. This doesn't >work. There's a substitution attack on DSA unless the standard >clearly specifies which digest algorithm to use [1]. Does this preclude us from changing the name for consistency sake. (Granted, we do need to specify a single algorithm for interoperability and security, but does that mean we shouldn't represent it as part of its ID?) >Check the archives >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/1999OctDec/0079.html >and sequelae for a description of the attack. > >-Ekr > >[1] Except that if you use an extension of DSA with a longer q >then you can use different digest algorithms for each size of q. _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Monday, 8 May 2000 11:59:45 UTC