- From: Jim Schaad (Exchange) <jimsch@EXCHANGE.MICROSOFT.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:04:22 -0700
- To: "'Donald E. Eastlake 3rd'" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>, "W3c-Ietf-Xmldsig (E-mail)" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
I would prefer seeing that a full buffer was generated -- 512-bits or 64bytes of material. This is based on the inner workings of SHA1 (it operates internally on 512 bits of material at a time). This number is based on the memories of discussions that were held during the creation of RFC 2631 where we put padding in during the hash computation from the Diffie-Hellman key agree to the Key-Encryption-Key result. jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [mailto:dee3@torque.pothole.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 7:57 PM > To: W3c-Ietf-Xmldsig (E-mail) > Subject: Re: Putting ObjectReferences First > > > > If SHA-1 is strong enough, then 160 bits (20 binary octets or 28 > octets base-64 encoded (of which the last is always "=")) are clearly > enough. SET always uses 20 octet nonces. > > Donald > > From: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@w3.org> > Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 18:38:19 -0400 (EDT) > Resent-Message-Id: <199910282238.SAA17353@www19.w3.org> > Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991028183759.00b84100@localhost> > X-Sender: reagle@localhost > Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 18:37:59 -0400 > To: "Jim Schaad (Exchange)" <jimsch@EXCHANGE.MICROSOFT.com> > Cc: "W3c-Ietf-Xmldsig (E-mail)" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org> > In-Reply-To: <EAB5B8B61A04684198FF1D0C1B3ACD194A70E4@DINO> > Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" > Resent-From: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > X-Mailing-List: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org> archive/latest/675 > X-Loop: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > Sender: w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org > Resent-Sender: w3c-ietf-xmldsig-request@w3.org > Precedence: list > >At 14:49 99/10/28 -0700, Jim Schaad (Exchange) wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > ><excerpt>Two ways to address this are to either 1) put a > random nonce in > >the front of the signature or 2) move the data that already in the > >signature and random forward. The problem with the nonce is that the > >nonce value must be transmitted as part of the signature and thus > >increases the size of all signed documents. > > > ></excerpt><<<<<<<< > > > > > >Nicely put Jim. What is your estimation of how large the > nonce would have > >to be if one were to use one? > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________ > > > >Joseph Reagle Jr. > > > >Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org > > > >XML-Signature Co-Chair http://w3.org/People/Reagle/ > > >
Received on Friday, 29 October 1999 15:04:26 UTC