- From: Phil Karlton <karlton@netscape.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 17:12:07 -0800
- To: HUGO@watson.ibm.com
- CC: dpkemp@missi.ncsc.mil, ietf-tls@www10.w3.org
HUGO@watson.ibm.com wrote: > I will not get into the discussion of whether retaining the entire handshake > data until master_secret is computed is a real problem or not. As I said before, I think this is the main discussion to have. The costs can be considerable; maybe they just have to be paid, but that decision should not be taken lightly. > If it is decided that it is not a real problem just go with HMAC on > the full handshake data. I concur. > If it is decided that it is a problem then it still does not justify going > to ad-hoc constructions. > Just define that you compute > MAC(master_secret, HASH(handshake_messages+Sender)) To a a certain extent, this is also an ad hoc construction. :-( > where HASH is a plain (unkeyed) hash function , e.g. SHA. > In this case you can still use the generic specification with MAC > (and whatever realization of MAC you choose to use), > and you also make clear that you authenticate HASH(handshake_messages+Sender) > rather than the full handshake_messages. (Which means that you assume your HASH > to be collsion-resistant). ... which is something I am only willing to assume on even days. :-( One mitigating factor is that the collision would have to be computed in real time (before the connection timed out) for a successful MITM attack. > As for computing two MAC's, one based on SHA and one on MD5, you can still > choose to do that. I would be more comfortable doing the concatenation of the two MACs as the content of the finished messages. > Though, it will be probelmatic to define using a single > generic MAC notation. The notational inconvenience is secondary. The words can be clear enough so that independent implementations can interoperate. > As Dan Simon said, if you do so you MUST use two different keys for > each of the MAC algorithms. Using 2 different derived keys (as opposed to the master secret) is indeed a better idea. PK -- Philip L. Karlton karlton@netscape.com Principal Curmudgeon http://www.netscape.com/people/karlton Netscape Communications Corporation Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. -- Albert Einstein
Received on Friday, 27 December 1996 20:13:19 UTC