Re: [Internet]Re: "Pluggable" key serialization in JCE/JCA
own code values for
>>> the curve access to the CurveDB would not help I think).
>>>
>>> CBOR is not QR specific, it’s specific for the Covid Vaccination
>>> Certificate framework (due to the QR code size restriction it can’t use
>>> JSON).
>>>
>>> Gruss
>>> Bernd
>>> --
>>> http://bernd.eckenfels.net <http://bernd.eckenfels.net>
>>> --------------------------
>>> *Von:* Anthony Scarpino >> <mailto:anthony.scarp...@oracle.com>>
>>> *Gesendet:* Monday, March 28, 2022 6:31:29 AM
>>> *An:* Anders Rundgren >> <mailto:anders.rundgren@gmail.com>>
>>> *Cc:* Bernd Eckenfels >> <mailto:e...@zusammenkunft.net>>; security-dev@openjdk.java.net
>>> <mailto:security-dev@openjdk.java.net> >> <mailto:security-dev@openjdk.java.net>>
>>> *Betreff:* Re: [Internet]Re: "Pluggable" key serialization in JCE/JCA
>>> Thanks for all the info. We don’t have experience with JOSE or COSE, I
>>> think we need to digest some of this data before making a future step
>>>
>>> Not knowing this technology until you brought it up a few days ago, a few
>>> questions i have are how is this used and how common? Would I see this
>>> used for more secure sites like banks or shopping through the browser or it
>>> more common sites. Is it only browser-based or are their other used cases?
>>> Bernd mentioned QR codes, is COSE used inside the QR code or the
>>> authentication for the user to get to their QR code?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Tony
>>>
>>> > On Mar 26, 2022, at 11:48 PM, Anders Rundgren
>>> > mailto:anders.rundgren@gmail.com>>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > > On 2022-03-26 23:14, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>>> >> Just for completeness, the standard for key transport in JOSE is JWK
>>> >> (RFC7517).
>>> >> In COSE it is a COSE_Key(Set) as defined in RFC8152 sect13.
>>> >> BTW the most widely used CBOR/COSE application are probably the QR codes
>>> >> around Covid and Vaccination certificates of the EU.
>>> > > Thanx Bernd and Michael for the additional clarifications!
>>> > > Now to the thing that spurred this discussion:
>>> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8037
>>> > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8037>
>>> > > This document defines how to use the Diffie-Hellman algorithms
>>> > "X25519" and "X448" as well as the signature algorithms "Ed25519" and
>>> > "Ed448" from the IRTF CFRG elliptic curves work in JSON Object
>>> > Signing and Encryption (JOSE).
>>> > > When RFC 8037 was created the assumption was that the "OKP" key
>>> > > container {sh|c}ould be used for other crypto systems having the same
>>> > > parameter set. This is now an active proposal:
>>> > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-looker-cose-bls-key-representations-00.html
>>> >
>>> > <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-looker-cose-bls-key-representations-00.html>
>>> > > Obviously everything works just fine if you look at the container in
>>> > > isolation. However, it means that "OKP" encoder/decoder code must be
>>> > > updated for every new reuse ("overloading"). To be meaningful these
>>> > > new algorithms would also have to coerced into the existing XEC or
>>> > > EdDSA interfaces.
>>> > > IMO, this would be VERY UNFORTUNATE since it is incompatible with the
>>> > > provider concept as well as with object oriented crypto APIs. I'm
>>> > > therefore suggesting that key containers for specific crypto systems
>>> > > should have unique names. In this particular case "BLS" seems logical.
>>> > > In Java it could eventually be mapped to BLSPublicKey and
>>> > > BLSPrivateKey.
>>> > > WDYT?
>>> > > There is no need for a JEP at this stage, only some kind of indication
>>> > > of what the JDK crypto team see as the best way forward from your
>>> > > horizon. The same discussion has emerged for Post Quantum Crypto
>>> > > algorithms.
>>> > > Thanx,
>>> > Anders
>
Re: [Internet]Re: "Pluggable" key serialization in JCE/JCA
Just for the record, the code for the EU Digital Covid Certificate is
available on GitHub at
https://github.com/orgs/ehn-dcc-development/repositories?language=java
Specifically, https://github.com/ehn-dcc-development/dgc-java#structure
says "CBOR, CWT/COSE - Support for representing the DGC in CBOR and to
sign/validate it. dgc-create-validate"
Authentication for the user to get to their QR code was done via an eID
(at least in the countries that issue electronic IDs).
Kind regards
Anthony
On 28/03/2022 11:30, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
Hello,
I think both might be too protocol specific to include it in JCE, but
a library for JWK would fit into JWT support in Jakarta EE.
For COSE the key descriptors are very simple (no certificates), not
sure if anything besides a cose library is really needed. (That
library would benefit from a curve registry, but since cose uses its
own code values for the curve access to the CurveDB would not help I
think).
CBOR is not QR specific, it’s specific for the Covid Vaccination
Certificate framework (due to the QR code size restriction it can’t
use JSON).
Gruss
Bernd
--
http://bernd.eckenfels.net
*Von:* Anthony Scarpino
*Gesendet:* Monday, March 28, 2022 6:31:29 AM
*An:* Anders Rundgren
*Cc:* Bernd Eckenfels ;
security-dev@openjdk.java.net
*Betreff:* Re: [Internet]Re: "Pluggable" key serialization in JCE/JCA
Thanks for all the info. We don’t have experience with JOSE or COSE, I
think we need to digest some of this data before making a future step
Not knowing this technology until you brought it up a few days ago, a
few questions i have are how is this used and how common? Would I see
this used for more secure sites like banks or shopping through the
browser or it more common sites. Is it only browser-based or are their
other used cases? Bernd mentioned QR codes, is COSE used inside the
QR code or the authentication for the user to get to their QR code?
Thanks
Tony
> On Mar 26, 2022, at 11:48 PM, Anders Rundgren
wrote:
>
> On 2022-03-26 23:14, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>> Just for completeness, the standard for key transport in JOSE is
JWK (RFC7517).
>> In COSE it is a COSE_Key(Set) as defined in RFC8152 sect13.
>> BTW the most widely used CBOR/COSE application are probably the QR
codes around Covid and Vaccination certificates of the EU.
>
> Thanx Bernd and Michael for the additional clarifications!
>
> Now to the thing that spurred this discussion:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8037
>
> This document defines how to use the Diffie-Hellman algorithms
> "X25519" and "X448" as well as the signature algorithms "Ed25519" and
> "Ed448" from the IRTF CFRG elliptic curves work in JSON Object
> Signing and Encryption (JOSE).
>
> When RFC 8037 was created the assumption was that the "OKP" key
container {sh|c}ould be used for other crypto systems having the same
parameter set. This is now an active proposal:
>
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-looker-cose-bls-key-representations-00.html
>
> Obviously everything works just fine if you look at the container in
isolation. However, it means that "OKP" encoder/decoder code must be
updated for every new reuse ("overloading"). To be meaningful these
new algorithms would also have to coerced into the existing XEC or
EdDSA interfaces.
>
> IMO, this would be VERY UNFORTUNATE since it is incompatible with
the provider concept as well as with object oriented crypto APIs. I'm
therefore suggesting that key containers for specific crypto systems
should have unique names. In this particular case "BLS" seems
logical. In Java it could eventually be mapped to BLSPublicKey and
BLSPrivateKey.
>
> WDYT?
>
> There is no need for a JEP at this stage, only some kind of
indication of what the JDK crypto team see as the best way forward
from your horizon. The same discussion has emerged for Post Quantum
Crypto algorithms.
>
> Thanx,
> Anders
Re: [Internet]Re: "Pluggable" key serialization in JCE/JCA
Hello,
I think both might be too protocol specific to include it in JCE, but a library
for JWK would fit into JWT support in Jakarta EE.
For COSE the key descriptors are very simple (no certificates), not sure if
anything besides a cose library is really needed. (That library would benefit
from a curve registry, but since cose uses its own code values for the curve
access to the CurveDB would not help I think).
CBOR is not QR specific, it’s specific for the Covid Vaccination Certificate
framework (due to the QR code size restriction it can’t use JSON).
Gruss
Bernd
--
http://bernd.eckenfels.net
Von: Anthony Scarpino
Gesendet: Monday, March 28, 2022 6:31:29 AM
An: Anders Rundgren
Cc: Bernd Eckenfels ; security-dev@openjdk.java.net
Betreff: Re: [Internet]Re: "Pluggable" key serialization in JCE/JCA
Thanks for all the info. We don’t have experience with JOSE or COSE, I think we
need to digest some of this data before making a future step
Not knowing this technology until you brought it up a few days ago, a few
questions i have are how is this used and how common? Would I see this used
for more secure sites like banks or shopping through the browser or it more
common sites. Is it only browser-based or are their other used cases? Bernd
mentioned QR codes, is COSE used inside the QR code or the authentication for
the user to get to their QR code?
Thanks
Tony
> On Mar 26, 2022, at 11:48 PM, Anders Rundgren
> wrote:
>
> On 2022-03-26 23:14, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>> Just for completeness, the standard for key transport in JOSE is JWK
>> (RFC7517).
>> In COSE it is a COSE_Key(Set) as defined in RFC8152 sect13.
>> BTW the most widely used CBOR/COSE application are probably the QR codes
>> around Covid and Vaccination certificates of the EU.
>
> Thanx Bernd and Michael for the additional clarifications!
>
> Now to the thing that spurred this discussion:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8037
>
> This document defines how to use the Diffie-Hellman algorithms
> "X25519" and "X448" as well as the signature algorithms "Ed25519" and
> "Ed448" from the IRTF CFRG elliptic curves work in JSON Object
> Signing and Encryption (JOSE).
>
> When RFC 8037 was created the assumption was that the "OKP" key container
> {sh|c}ould be used for other crypto systems having the same parameter set.
> This is now an active proposal:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-looker-cose-bls-key-representations-00.html
>
> Obviously everything works just fine if you look at the container in
> isolation. However, it means that "OKP" encoder/decoder code must be updated
> for every new reuse ("overloading"). To be meaningful these new algorithms
> would also have to coerced into the existing XEC or EdDSA interfaces.
>
> IMO, this would be VERY UNFORTUNATE since it is incompatible with the
> provider concept as well as with object oriented crypto APIs. I'm therefore
> suggesting that key containers for specific crypto systems should have unique
> names. In this particular case "BLS" seems logical. In Java it could
> eventually be mapped to BLSPublicKey and BLSPrivateKey.
>
> WDYT?
>
> There is no need for a JEP at this stage, only some kind of indication of
> what the JDK crypto team see as the best way forward from your horizon. The
> same discussion has emerged for Post Quantum Crypto algorithms.
>
> Thanx,
> Anders
Re: [Internet]Re: "Pluggable" key serialization in JCE/JCA
Thanks for all the info. We don’t have experience with JOSE or COSE, I think we
need to digest some of this data before making a future step
Not knowing this technology until you brought it up a few days ago, a few
questions i have are how is this used and how common? Would I see this used
for more secure sites like banks or shopping through the browser or it more
common sites. Is it only browser-based or are their other used cases? Bernd
mentioned QR codes, is COSE used inside the QR code or the authentication for
the user to get to their QR code?
Thanks
Tony
> On Mar 26, 2022, at 11:48 PM, Anders Rundgren
> wrote:
>
> On 2022-03-26 23:14, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>> Just for completeness, the standard for key transport in JOSE is JWK
>> (RFC7517).
>> In COSE it is a COSE_Key(Set) as defined in RFC8152 sect13.
>> BTW the most widely used CBOR/COSE application are probably the QR codes
>> around Covid and Vaccination certificates of the EU.
>
> Thanx Bernd and Michael for the additional clarifications!
>
> Now to the thing that spurred this discussion:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8037
>
> This document defines how to use the Diffie-Hellman algorithms
> "X25519" and "X448" as well as the signature algorithms "Ed25519" and
> "Ed448" from the IRTF CFRG elliptic curves work in JSON Object
> Signing and Encryption (JOSE).
>
> When RFC 8037 was created the assumption was that the "OKP" key container
> {sh|c}ould be used for other crypto systems having the same parameter set.
> This is now an active proposal:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-looker-cose-bls-key-representations-00.html
>
> Obviously everything works just fine if you look at the container in
> isolation. However, it means that "OKP" encoder/decoder code must be updated
> for every new reuse ("overloading"). To be meaningful these new algorithms
> would also have to coerced into the existing XEC or EdDSA interfaces.
>
> IMO, this would be VERY UNFORTUNATE since it is incompatible with the
> provider concept as well as with object oriented crypto APIs. I'm therefore
> suggesting that key containers for specific crypto systems should have unique
> names. In this particular case "BLS" seems logical. In Java it could
> eventually be mapped to BLSPublicKey and BLSPrivateKey.
>
> WDYT?
>
> There is no need for a JEP at this stage, only some kind of indication of
> what the JDK crypto team see as the best way forward from your horizon. The
> same discussion has emerged for Post Quantum Crypto algorithms.
>
> Thanx,
> Anders
Re: [Internet]Re: "Pluggable" key serialization in JCE/JCA
On 2022-03-26 23:14, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
Just for completeness, the standard for key transport in JOSE is JWK (RFC7517).
In COSE it is a COSE_Key(Set) as defined in RFC8152 sect13.
BTW the most widely used CBOR/COSE application are probably the QR codes around
Covid and Vaccination certificates of the EU.
Thanx Bernd and Michael for the additional clarifications!
Now to the thing that spurred this discussion:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8037
This document defines how to use the Diffie-Hellman algorithms
"X25519" and "X448" as well as the signature algorithms "Ed25519" and
"Ed448" from the IRTF CFRG elliptic curves work in JSON Object
Signing and Encryption (JOSE).
When RFC 8037 was created the assumption was that the "OKP" key container
{sh|c}ould be used for other crypto systems having the same parameter set. This is now
an active proposal:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-looker-cose-bls-key-representations-00.html
Obviously everything works just fine if you look at the container in isolation. However, it means
that "OKP" encoder/decoder code must be updated for every new reuse
("overloading"). To be meaningful these new algorithms would also have to coerced into
the existing XEC or EdDSA interfaces.
IMO, this would be VERY UNFORTUNATE since it is incompatible with the provider concept as
well as with object oriented crypto APIs. I'm therefore suggesting that key containers
for specific crypto systems should have unique names. In this particular case
"BLS" seems logical. In Java it could eventually be mapped to BLSPublicKey and
BLSPrivateKey.
WDYT?
There is no need for a JEP at this stage, only some kind of indication of what
the JDK crypto team see as the best way forward from your horizon. The same
discussion has emerged for Post Quantum Crypto algorithms.
Thanx,
Anders
Re: [Internet]Re: "Pluggable" key serialization in JCE/JCA
Just for completeness, the standard for key transport in JOSE is JWK (RFC7517).
In COSE it is a COSE_Key(Set) as defined in RFC8152 sect13.
BTW the most widely used CBOR/COSE application are probably the QR codes around
Covid and Vaccination certificates of the EU.
Gruss
Bernd
--
http://bernd.eckenfels.net
Von: security-dev im Auftrag von Michael
StJohns
Gesendet: Samstag, März 26, 2022 10:29 PM
An: security-dev@openjdk.java.net
Betreff: Re: [Internet]Re: "Pluggable" key serialization in JCE/JCA
On 3/26/2022 11:05 AM, xueleifan(XueleiFan) wrote:
> Hi Anders,
>
> I would like to have look at the COSE/JOSE specs. If it is convenient to
> you, any suggestions about where I could start from? RFC 8812? Do you know
> where (areas and products) the COSE/JOSE specs are used in practice?
>
> Thanks,
> Xuelei
Hi Xuelei -
Just for clarification - JOSE/COSE are data description languages with
specific provisions for encoding various type of cryptographic key
material. E.g. think ASN1 ~= JOSE or COSE and the RFC's that Anders is
pointing you at as approximately equal to PKCS8 and X.509 plus the key
type specific stuff (e.g. PKCS1 for RSA key encodings, X9.63 for EC key
encodings, later IETF RFCs for newer encodings).
This isn't about math so much as it is about encodings.
Mike
>
>> On Mar 25, 2022, at 11:56 AM, Anders Rundgren
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Michael & the JDK crypto team,
>>
>> Although it might be cool writing a JEP it is not really my job. There are
>> also multiple ways of addressing this issue.
>>
>> BTW, the COSE/JOSE folks who are about to introduce new algorithms want to
>> overload RFC 8037 which defines a key type OKP.
>> I'm not in favor of this idea since breaks existing OKP code.
>> I'm suggesting that each new crypto system should get its own name space and
>> thus long-term corresponding Java interfaces.
>>
>> Since this is happening NOW and there is no turning back, it would be useful
>> to get some early feedback from the JDK folks. In fact, this is the origin
>> of this request.
>>
>> It seems that nobody representing JDK crypto is involved in COSE/JOSE.
>>
>> Thanx,
>> Anders
>>
>>
>> On 2022-03-25 18:23, Michael StJohns wrote:
>>> On 3/25/2022 12:33 PM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
>>>> On 2022-03-25 17:12, Anthony Scarpino wrote:
>>>>> When you say "construct and EC key", do you mean creating an EC key from
>>>>> an existing set of values via PKCS8 or X509 encoding? Or are you
>>>>> talking about EC key generation?
>>>> I was talking about creating keys from parameter data supplied by for
>>>> example JOSE:
>>>>{
>>>> "kty": "EC",
>>>> "crv": "P-256",
>>>> "x": "6BKxpty8cI-exDzCkh-goU6dXq3MbcY0cd1LaAxiNrU",
>>>> "y": "mCbcvUzm44j3Lt2b5BPyQloQ91tf2D2V-gzeUxWaUdg"
>>>>}
>>>>
>>>> Apparently this particular issue have solution (as Michael StJohns
>>>> showed), although it is not particularity intuitive as well as
>>>> undocumented.
>>>>
>>>> Another take on this issue:
>>>> https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/17/docs/api/java.base/java/security/Key.html#getEncoded()
>>>>
>>>> "Returns the key in its primary encoding format, or null if this key
>>>> does not support encoding"
>>>>
>>>> With COSE/JOSE there is no longer an obvious primary encoding format.
>>> Of course there is. You may not like that it's not COSE or JOSE, but
>>> the encoding spec remains as is and 10s of 1000s of implementations that
>>> use that encoding would be annoyed if you tried to claim a new "primary
>>> encoding format".
>>> The SubjectPublicKeyInfo encoding for PublicKeys, the PKCS8 encoding for
>>> private keys, and RAW encoding for SecretKeys is what's there and I'm
>>> pretty sure won't change. I occasionally wished for a getEncoded()
>>> method that took an encoding type as an argument (e.g.
>>> getEncoded("bareXY") or some such), but that's not in the API.
>>> What I'd suggest is that you write a JEP for adding EncodedKeySpec
>>> classes for COSE and JOSE to the API. I'd probably also add a
>>> GenericKeyEncodingSpec class. That should be simple enough as a first step.
>>> The second step would be to write and contribute a Jose and Cose
>>> KeyFactory implementation that uses those classes.
>>> As I noted, it should be possible to externalize any preferred encoding
>>> by using the getKeySpec method of KeyFactory rather than just the key
>>> types default encoding.
>>> Later, Mike
>>>> Anders
>>>>
>>>>> Tony
>>
Re: [Internet]Re: "Pluggable" key serialization in JCE/JCA
On 3/26/2022 11:05 AM, xueleifan(XueleiFan) wrote:
Hi Anders,
I would like to have look at the COSE/JOSE specs. If it is convenient to you,
any suggestions about where I could start from? RFC 8812? Do you know where
(areas and products) the COSE/JOSE specs are used in practice?
Thanks,
Xuelei
Hi Xuelei -
Just for clarification - JOSE/COSE are data description languages with
specific provisions for encoding various type of cryptographic key
material. E.g. think ASN1 ~= JOSE or COSE and the RFC's that Anders is
pointing you at as approximately equal to PKCS8 and X.509 plus the key
type specific stuff (e.g. PKCS1 for RSA key encodings, X9.63 for EC key
encodings, later IETF RFCs for newer encodings).
This isn't about math so much as it is about encodings.
Mike
On Mar 25, 2022, at 11:56 AM, Anders Rundgren
wrote:
Hi Michael & the JDK crypto team,
Although it might be cool writing a JEP it is not really my job. There are
also multiple ways of addressing this issue.
BTW, the COSE/JOSE folks who are about to introduce new algorithms want to
overload RFC 8037 which defines a key type OKP.
I'm not in favor of this idea since breaks existing OKP code.
I'm suggesting that each new crypto system should get its own name space and
thus long-term corresponding Java interfaces.
Since this is happening NOW and there is no turning back, it would be useful to
get some early feedback from the JDK folks. In fact, this is the origin of
this request.
It seems that nobody representing JDK crypto is involved in COSE/JOSE.
Thanx,
Anders
On 2022-03-25 18:23, Michael StJohns wrote:
On 3/25/2022 12:33 PM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
On 2022-03-25 17:12, Anthony Scarpino wrote:
When you say "construct and EC key", do you mean creating an EC key from
an existing set of values via PKCS8 or X509 encoding? Or are you
talking about EC key generation?
I was talking about creating keys from parameter data supplied by for
example JOSE:
{
"kty": "EC",
"crv": "P-256",
"x": "6BKxpty8cI-exDzCkh-goU6dXq3MbcY0cd1LaAxiNrU",
"y": "mCbcvUzm44j3Lt2b5BPyQloQ91tf2D2V-gzeUxWaUdg"
}
Apparently this particular issue have solution (as Michael StJohns
showed), although it is not particularity intuitive as well as
undocumented.
Another take on this issue:
https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/17/docs/api/java.base/java/security/Key.html#getEncoded()
"Returns the key in its primary encoding format, or null if this key
does not support encoding"
With COSE/JOSE there is no longer an obvious primary encoding format.
Of course there is. You may not like that it's not COSE or JOSE, but
the encoding spec remains as is and 10s of 1000s of implementations that
use that encoding would be annoyed if you tried to claim a new "primary
encoding format".
The SubjectPublicKeyInfo encoding for PublicKeys, the PKCS8 encoding for
private keys, and RAW encoding for SecretKeys is what's there and I'm
pretty sure won't change. I occasionally wished for a getEncoded()
method that took an encoding type as an argument (e.g.
getEncoded("bareXY") or some such), but that's not in the API.
What I'd suggest is that you write a JEP for adding EncodedKeySpec
classes for COSE and JOSE to the API. I'd probably also add a
GenericKeyEncodingSpec class. That should be simple enough as a first step.
The second step would be to write and contribute a Jose and Cose
KeyFactory implementation that uses those classes.
As I noted, it should be possible to externalize any preferred encoding
by using the getKeySpec method of KeyFactory rather than just the key
types default encoding.
Later, Mike
Anders
Tony
Re: [Internet]Re: "Pluggable" key serialization in JCE/JCA
On 2022-03-26 16:05, xueleifan(XueleiFan) wrote:
Hi Anders,
I would like to have look at the COSE/JOSE specs. If it is convenient to you,
any suggestions about where I could start from? RFC 8812? Do you know where
(areas and products) the COSE/JOSE specs are used in practice?
Hi Xuelei,
The core JOSE RFCs should be
Signatures: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7515.html
Encryption: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7516.html
Algorithms: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7518.html
Ed*,X* support https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8037.html
COSE: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8152.html
JOSE is a very wide-spread standard. It is for example a part of OAuth used by
for example most social media platforms as well as GitHub. It is nowadays
de-facto the replacement for XML Dsig.
COSE has a more narrow set of applications but with a huge volume like IoT. It
is also a part of FIDO which is how I came in contact with COSE. We will
eventually all use FIDO.
If there is anything you want to ask, just send me an e-mail, anytime. I'm not a
cryptographer but a user of crypto which is why I'm a little bit "obsessed"
with the high level APIs :)
Regards,
Anders
Thanks,
Xuelei
On Mar 25, 2022, at 11:56 AM, Anders Rundgren
wrote:
Hi Michael & the JDK crypto team,
Although it might be cool writing a JEP it is not really my job. There are
also multiple ways of addressing this issue.
BTW, the COSE/JOSE folks who are about to introduce new algorithms want to
overload RFC 8037 which defines a key type OKP.
I'm not in favor of this idea since breaks existing OKP code.
I'm suggesting that each new crypto system should get its own name space and
thus long-term corresponding Java interfaces.
Since this is happening NOW and there is no turning back, it would be useful to
get some early feedback from the JDK folks. In fact, this is the origin of
this request.
It seems that nobody representing JDK crypto is involved in COSE/JOSE.
Thanx,
Anders
On 2022-03-25 18:23, Michael StJohns wrote:
On 3/25/2022 12:33 PM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
On 2022-03-25 17:12, Anthony Scarpino wrote:
When you say "construct and EC key", do you mean creating an EC key from
an existing set of values via PKCS8 or X509 encoding? Or are you
talking about EC key generation?
I was talking about creating keys from parameter data supplied by for
example JOSE:
{
"kty": "EC",
"crv": "P-256",
"x": "6BKxpty8cI-exDzCkh-goU6dXq3MbcY0cd1LaAxiNrU",
"y": "mCbcvUzm44j3Lt2b5BPyQloQ91tf2D2V-gzeUxWaUdg"
}
Apparently this particular issue have solution (as Michael StJohns
showed), although it is not particularity intuitive as well as
undocumented.
Another take on this issue:
https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/17/docs/api/java.base/java/security/Key.html#getEncoded()
"Returns the key in its primary encoding format, or null if this key
does not support encoding"
With COSE/JOSE there is no longer an obvious primary encoding format.
Of course there is. You may not like that it's not COSE or JOSE, but
the encoding spec remains as is and 10s of 1000s of implementations that
use that encoding would be annoyed if you tried to claim a new "primary
encoding format".
The SubjectPublicKeyInfo encoding for PublicKeys, the PKCS8 encoding for
private keys, and RAW encoding for SecretKeys is what's there and I'm
pretty sure won't change. I occasionally wished for a getEncoded()
method that took an encoding type as an argument (e.g.
getEncoded("bareXY") or some such), but that's not in the API.
What I'd suggest is that you write a JEP for adding EncodedKeySpec
classes for COSE and JOSE to the API. I'd probably also add a
GenericKeyEncodingSpec class. That should be simple enough as a first step.
The second step would be to write and contribute a Jose and Cose
KeyFactory implementation that uses those classes.
As I noted, it should be possible to externalize any preferred encoding
by using the getKeySpec method of KeyFactory rather than just the key
types default encoding.
Later, Mike
Anders
Tony
Re: [Internet]Re: "Pluggable" key serialization in JCE/JCA
Hi Anders,
I would like to have look at the COSE/JOSE specs. If it is convenient to you,
any suggestions about where I could start from? RFC 8812? Do you know where
(areas and products) the COSE/JOSE specs are used in practice?
Thanks,
Xuelei
> On Mar 25, 2022, at 11:56 AM, Anders Rundgren
> wrote:
>
> Hi Michael & the JDK crypto team,
>
> Although it might be cool writing a JEP it is not really my job. There are
> also multiple ways of addressing this issue.
>
> BTW, the COSE/JOSE folks who are about to introduce new algorithms want to
> overload RFC 8037 which defines a key type OKP.
> I'm not in favor of this idea since breaks existing OKP code.
> I'm suggesting that each new crypto system should get its own name space and
> thus long-term corresponding Java interfaces.
>
> Since this is happening NOW and there is no turning back, it would be useful
> to get some early feedback from the JDK folks. In fact, this is the origin
> of this request.
>
> It seems that nobody representing JDK crypto is involved in COSE/JOSE.
>
> Thanx,
> Anders
>
>
> On 2022-03-25 18:23, Michael StJohns wrote:
>> On 3/25/2022 12:33 PM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
>>> On 2022-03-25 17:12, Anthony Scarpino wrote:
When you say "construct and EC key", do you mean creating an EC key from
an existing set of values via PKCS8 or X509 encoding? Or are you
talking about EC key generation?
>>>
>>> I was talking about creating keys from parameter data supplied by for
>>> example JOSE:
>>> {
>>> "kty": "EC",
>>> "crv": "P-256",
>>> "x": "6BKxpty8cI-exDzCkh-goU6dXq3MbcY0cd1LaAxiNrU",
>>> "y": "mCbcvUzm44j3Lt2b5BPyQloQ91tf2D2V-gzeUxWaUdg"
>>> }
>>>
>>> Apparently this particular issue have solution (as Michael StJohns
>>> showed), although it is not particularity intuitive as well as
>>> undocumented.
>>>
>>> Another take on this issue:
>>> https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/17/docs/api/java.base/java/security/Key.html#getEncoded()
>>>
>>> "Returns the key in its primary encoding format, or null if this key
>>> does not support encoding"
>>>
>>> With COSE/JOSE there is no longer an obvious primary encoding format.
>> Of course there is. You may not like that it's not COSE or JOSE, but
>> the encoding spec remains as is and 10s of 1000s of implementations that
>> use that encoding would be annoyed if you tried to claim a new "primary
>> encoding format".
>> The SubjectPublicKeyInfo encoding for PublicKeys, the PKCS8 encoding for
>> private keys, and RAW encoding for SecretKeys is what's there and I'm
>> pretty sure won't change. I occasionally wished for a getEncoded()
>> method that took an encoding type as an argument (e.g.
>> getEncoded("bareXY") or some such), but that's not in the API.
>> What I'd suggest is that you write a JEP for adding EncodedKeySpec
>> classes for COSE and JOSE to the API. I'd probably also add a
>> GenericKeyEncodingSpec class. That should be simple enough as a first step.
>> The second step would be to write and contribute a Jose and Cose
>> KeyFactory implementation that uses those classes.
>> As I noted, it should be possible to externalize any preferred encoding
>> by using the getKeySpec method of KeyFactory rather than just the key
>> types default encoding.
>> Later, Mike
>>>
>>> Anders
>>>
Tony
>
>
