Re: AlgorithmIdentifier in encrypt/decrypt/sign/verify operations

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 2, 2013, at 1:46 AM, Vijay Bharadwaj <Vijay.Bharadwaj@microsoft.com>
wrote:

  This was raised as issue #12 back in August. FWIW I think it’s a good
idea to separate operation-specific parameters from algorithm parameters.
At the time we did not have strong use cases that would argue for such
separation. Now that the API is taking shape, it does seem like combining
them may be adding confusion. So it may be a good idea to try separating
them out.



IMO redundant specifications of the algorithm in different parameters are
trouble for implementers – you need to define precedence rules for who wins
if they conflict. Better to keep things simple by only requiring the
algorithm to be specified in one place.



I’m not sure that we need a parameter for specifying the length of an HMAC
key, though. HMAC is specified to always use a key that is the size of the
hash output – if the key is longer it gets hashed to reduce it to the right
size. So it should be fine to always generate a key of the size of the hash
output, since there is no security advantage to making it longer.


That would be a reasonable simplification. We would have to say that in our
spec, since as you say the input to the HMAC algorithm as defined in the
RFC and FIPS PUB can be any length.

...Mark



*From:* Mark Watson [mailto:watsonm@netflix.com <watsonm@netflix.com>]
*Sent:* Saturday, March 30, 2013 9:52 AM
*To:* Richard Barnes
*Cc:* public-webcrypto@w3.org
*Subject:* Re: AlgorithmIdentifier in encrypt/decrypt/sign/verify operations





On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote:


On Mar 27, 2013, at 9:10 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:

> This may be related to ISSUE-12 and apologies again if this has been
discussed before - it is coming up now frequently in implementation
discussions.
>
> In the encrypt/decrypt/sign/verify operations, two AlgorithmIdentifier
objects are provided as input, one as an explicit parameter and one which
is associated with the Key object (and appears as the Key.algorithm
attribute). Presumably it is an error if the "name" member of the
dictionary does not match (after normalization), though I am not sure if
this is clearly specified.
>
> In some cases, it is specified that the params member will have different
types in these two places (I'm assuming that the Key.algorithm attribute
takes the value that was provided to generateKey). For example for AES-CTR,
the params in Key.algorithm contains the key length and params in
encrypt/decrypt contains the IV.
>
> But for other cases things are very unclear. For example, for HMAC, the
same AlgorithmParameters type is used, containing the hash algorithm. In
this case it seems completely redundant to provide the same object twice to
the sign/verify call (once in the method parameters and again in the
Key.algorithm attribute).
>
> Am I missing something ? Does anyone else find this confusing ?
>
> I think the confusion could be resolved by
> (i) replacing the AlgorithmIdentifier argument to
sign/verify/encrypt/decrypt with AlgorithmParameters.
> (ii) for HMAC, the params provided to sign/verify must be null, as the
hash algorithm should have been provided when the Key was
created/imported/unwrapped

I agree that it could be made clearer.

When I was implementing PolyCrypt, my read of the specification was as
follows:
1. The algorithm provided as a parameter to encrypt() specifies the
encryption (and parameters)
2. Throw an error if the Key.algorithm.name != algorithm.name

That is, for the algorithm in the Key, everything besides the name is
ignored.  This seems right to first order, but might be wrong, e.g., for
HMAC, where you might want to compare the hash algorithm as well.



It seems ambiguous to me whether the hash algorithm is a property of the
key or a parameter to the operation. Another source of confusion.




I'm leery of removing the algorithm parameter from encrypt(), if only
because it seems really confusing and non-idiomatic.



What idiom, and why do you say it's confusing ? The algorithm is a property
of the key, so it's confusing that I need to re-specify it as a method
parameter. That only seems to introduce an unnecessary failure path and
give the incorrect impression to developer that they have some choice about
the algorithm here. They don't. It's implicit in the Key.



I don't think it's terrible to have the algorithm specified in two places,
as long as its clear how those two specifications relate to each other



It's not clear now. IIUC, anything in the method AlgorithmIdentifier that
is also a property of the Key must match. Anything else is a method
parameter.



A particularly confusing case is when there are both algorithm and method
parameters. For example, suppose a create an AES-CBC key with { name :
"AES-CBC", params: { length: 128 } }. Am I supposed to write



encrypt( { name: "AES-CBC", { "length" : 128, "iv" : iv } }, ... )



?



If I'm allowed to miss out the length here, why is it that it makes sense
to miss out some of the Key properties and not others (the algorithm name
itself) ?



This could be completely cleaned up by only specifying the "params" member
in the methods. Specifically by defining an OperationParameters for that
thing and derving the operation parameters objects from that. This would
provide a clear separation between algorithm and operation parameters.



...Mark





> As a side note, I believe that to generate a HMAC key we need to specify
the key length. At least according to FIPS 198-1 the key, K, can be of any
length. So, either we require in WebCrypto that it is a particular length
(say, the same size as the hash function), or we need a length parameter to
generateKey for HMAC.

+1 on adding a length parameter.

--Richard

>
> ...Mark