On 2016-06-11 01:17, "Jim Schaad" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>>Section 5.2
>>"The COSE_Encrypt1 encrypted structure does not have the ability to
>>specify
>>recipients of the message. The structure assumes that the recipient of
>>the object
>>will already know the identity of the key to be used in order to decrypt
>>the
>>message. If a key needs to be identified to the recipient, the enveloped
>>structure
>>ought to be used.”
>>One type of compact encryption formats we have looked at has been,
>>essentially: [key identifier, cipher text] (disregarding IV etc.). We
>>would like to
>>use COSE_Encrypt1 which essentially is: [algorithm, cipher text]
>>(disregarding IV
>>etc.). Making algorithm optional is covered in Appendix A. But I read
>>the text
>>above as using this format with a kid header is not possible, is that
>>the intention?
>>I can maybe understand this from a level/layer structure point of, but
>>not really
>>from a security point of view.
>
>The choice of the word 'ought' was very deliberate.  The intention is to
>say that this is what it is believed should be done, but it is not by any
>means a statement of requirement.  You can violate this without being in
>violation of the rules, but you should really think about why you are
>doing it.

Some more thoughts on this.

I understand this is not normative.

It sounds like you say it is not recommended (SHOULD NOT) but is allowed
(MAY) given certain important security considerations are made.

- Why not formulate it like that?

- I didn’t find any security considerations specifically on this, but may
have missed them. If they are not already in, I think some considerations
should be included. Comparing with DTLS, there is essentially a Sender ID
(disregarding IV etc.), no algorithm and no enveloped structure. I assume
that DTLS fulfils those security considerations, so maybe that can serve
as a good example?

Since this may be a special case of no algorithm, some text about the case
in question could be included in Appendix A.


Göran

_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose

Reply via email to