RE: Last Call for "XML Encryption 1.1", "XML Encryption 1.1 CipherReference Processing using 2.0 Transforms" to end this Thursday 16 Feb

Personally I believe GCM is the better long-term choice, I view RFC 6476 as a pragmatic solution but essentially a stop-gap. I cannot tell if there is the possibility of a timing attack and this alone makes me concerned.  Additionally, if XML Sec 1.1 requires GCM I expect to see uptake of that mode.

Finally, I'd really (like all of us, I think) like to see this effort reach the goal line and if we keep doing modifications I fear that we'll just move it out even further.

-- Magnus


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cantor, Scott [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu]
> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 4:57 PM
> To: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com; public-xmlsec@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call for "XML Encryption 1.1", "XML Encryption 1.1
> CipherReference Processing using 2.0 Transforms" to end this Thursday 16
> Feb
> 
> On 2/13/12 7:41 PM, "Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com"
> <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:
> >
> >We have received no comments, other than the typo which Scott noted. If
> >you are aware of any comment, please share on the public list.
> 
> My comment suggesting we consider adding a non-GCM MAC+CBC option?
> With or without a key derivation. I can file that formally if I need to.
> 
> I'm increasingly convinced this is a critical near term need to solve the CBC
> problem.
> 
> -- Scott
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2012 03:23:57 UTC