Well you weren’t necessarily *wrong* the first time.

 — Justin, not as chair


> On Mar 20, 2017, at 3:58 PM, Samuel Erdtman <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> *implementers 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Samuel Erdtman <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Thanks again!
> 
> I think this will add some clarity for tormentors.
> 
> //Samuel
> 
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Jim Schaad <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> There are two different schools of thought about where to put the 
> authentication tag.  RFC 5116 was designed so that it is part of the standard 
> set of parameters rather than separate.  Thus, for GCM, it is included as 
> part of the cipher text.  For SIV mode it is the IV and there is no extra 
> authentication tag.
> 
>  
> 
> Other encodings have made the fields be separate, JOSE and CMS keep the tag 
> and the cipher text as separate items and, for some systems, you then get the 
> opposite world of needed to combined them when doing decryption operation.   
> The decision of where and how authentication tags are placed is always going 
> to be an encoding decision and not part of the encryption algorithm.
> 
>  
> 
> The decision was made to combine them for COSE because it saved an additional 
> field, and thus one or more bytes are removed from the encoding.  This 
> followed the guidance of trying for very short encodings. 
> 
>  
> 
> I have filed an issue to remember this at the next revision.
> 
>  
> 
> Jim
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: Samuel Erdtman [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] 
> Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2017 1:08 PM
> To: Jim Schaad <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; 
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Cc: cose <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Subject: Re: Authentication tag
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks Jim and Ilari for the quick replies.
> 
> So if I understand it correctly RFC 5116 defines AE and AEAD with the 
> requirement to bundle the tag with the ciphertext, so it would not be allowed 
> to put the tag in the COSE headers.
> 
> Section 10 Content Encryption Algorithms, gives a hint of where to find the 
> tag, 'normally' appended. Forgive me my ignorance, but does GCM have a more 
> normative requirement on the location of the tag in a ciphertext?
> 
> If GCM does not mandate the location of the tag in the ciphertext and we 
> cannot put it in a header attribute then I would like more explicit language 
> about where to find/put the tag.
> 
> Once again thanks for the quick and enlightening reply.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> //Samuel
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Jim Schaad <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
> From Section 10:
> 
>  
> 
> COSE restricts the set of legal content encryption algorithms to those that 
> support authentication both of the content and additional data. The 
> encryption process will generate some type of authentication value, but that 
> value may be either explicit or implicit in terms of the algorithm 
> definition. For simplicity sake, the authentication code will normally be 
> defined as being appended to the cipher text stream. The encryption functions 
> are:
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: Samuel Erdtman [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] 
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 9:50 AM
> To: cose <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; Jim Schaad 
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Subject: Authentication tag
> 
>  
> 
> Hi
> 
> I´m working on a JavaScript implementation of the COSE msg specification, 
> currently working on the GCM encryption.
> 
> In the nodejs crypto environment the authentication tag is set separately 
> i.e. a specific setAuthTag call. I looked into openssl and could see that 
> that was the case there too.
> 
> In the examples provided with the COSE specification I could find out that 
> the auth tag is appends to the end of the ciphertext.
> 
> I tried to find this described in the COSE specification but could not find 
> it. It might be described in some refereed specification but it was not 
> obvious to me at least.
> 
> If it is not to late I would suggest that authentication tag is lifted out 
> from the ciphertext and into the unprotected header similar to IV. Or that it 
> is explicitly described that the authentication tag should be appended to the 
> ciphertext.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Samuel Erdtman
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> COSE mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose

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

Reply via email to