On 2022-03-28 21:57, xueleifan(XueleiFan) wrote:
Thank you for the information and discussion, Anders, Bernd and Mike. I had a
better understand of JOSE/COSE and the problems.
Thanx Xuelei!
May I ask a highly related question?
Assume there is a new cool XYZ algorithm family supported by a third party JCE
provider.
What would be needed in order to make XYZ public keys in X.509 certificates
automatically decode into an associated XYXPublicKey (also supplied by the
third party)?
I tried to follow the JDK X.509 decoder source but I failed :(
Regards,
Anders
For the crypto implementation, for example Ed25519 in the SunEC provider, I
would prefer to keep the footprint in OpenJDK as minimal as possible. For
example, the Ed25519 key factory could accept XECPublicKeySpec and
XECPrivateKeySpec only, and support no more encoding format (currently,
X509EncodedKeySpec and PKCS8EncodedKeySpec are also supported by the SunEC
provider). Except COSE/JOSE/PEM, there may be a few other known encoding
formats, and more in the future. It would be challenging to track many
encoding formats in specific protocols and their development in OpenJDK. If a
provider does not support protocol specific format, the application rely on it
could fail, which is not good for application developers. And thus the purpose
to support more encoding format in one provider could be frangible.
There could be third party's encoding format specific provider, for example a
KeyFactory provider accepting JOSE/COSE format and converting between
XECPublicKeySpec/XECPrivateKeySpec and protocol specific formats. The factory
might belong more to the protocol specific library, rather than the OpenJDK
reference implementation. Unfortunately, the current KeyFactory.getInstance(“
Ed25519”) design cannot identify the encoding formats, and thus may just return
a provider that does not support the expected encoding format. It might be a
workaround to use different algorithm name, like “JOSE/Ed25519”.
Alternatively, the JOSE/COSE could transfer the encoded stream to
XECPublicKeySpec and XECPrivateKeySpec, without using KeyFactory. It may be
transparent to application developers if the transferring is wrapped in the
protocol specific lib.
Just my $.02.
Xuelei
On Mar 28, 2022, at 2:30 AM, Bernd Eckenfels <e...@zusammenkunft.net
<mailto:e...@zusammenkunft.net>> 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 <http://bernd.eckenfels.net>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Von:* Anthony Scarpino <anthony.scarp...@oracle.com
<mailto:anthony.scarp...@oracle.com>>
*Gesendet:* Monday, March 28, 2022 6:31:29 AM
*An:* Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren....@gmail.com
<mailto:anders.rundgren....@gmail.com>>
*Cc:* Bernd Eckenfels <e...@zusammenkunft.net <mailto:e...@zusammenkunft.net>>;
security-dev@openjdk.java.net <mailto:security-dev@openjdk.java.net> <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 <anders.rundgren....@gmail.com
<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
