On 10/26/14, 1:26 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:

*** Huge security issue ***

5.4:
    Rationale: because Diffie-Hellman keys of 1024 bits are estimated to
    be roughly equivalent to 80-bit symmetric keys, it is better to use
    longer keys for the "DHE" family of cipher suites.  Key lengths of at
    least 2048 bits are estimated to be roughly equivalent to 112-bit
    symmetric keys and might be sufficient for at least the next
    10 years.  See Section 5.5 for additional information on the use of
    modular Diffie-Hellman in TLS.

Earlier, the document points to RFC 3766 (thank you), and that document has 
different estimates than what the draft has here. From RFC 3766:
====================
    +-------------+-----------+--------------+--------------+
    | System      |           |              |              |
    | requirement | Symmetric | RSA or DH    | DSA subgroup |
    | for attack  | key size  | modulus size | size         |
    | resistance  | (bits)    | (bits)       | (bits)       |
    | (bits)      |           |              |              |
    +-------------+-----------+--------------+--------------+
    |     70      |     70    |      947     |     129      |
    |     80      |     80    |     1228     |     148      |
    |     90      |     90    |     1553     |     167      |
    |    100      |    100    |     1926     |     186      |
    |    150      |    150    |     4575     |     284      |
    |    200      |    200    |     8719     |     383      |
    |    250      |    250    |    14596     |     482      |
    +-------------+-----------+--------------+--------------+

5.1.  TWIRL Correction

    If the TWIRL machine becomes a reality, and if there are advances in
    parallelism for row reduction in factoring, then conservative
    estimates would subtract about 11 bits from the system security
    column of the table.  Thus, in order to get 89 bits of security, one
    would need an RSA modulus of about 1900 bits.
====================

That is, with a TWIRL correction, 1024-bit keys yield about 65 bits of 
equivalent strength, not the 80 listed in the draft. A 2048-bit key would give 
about 92 bits of strength.

Of course, the draft can refer to other documents that have happier estimates 
of strength for 1024-bit and 2048-bit keys, but that does not help the intended 
audience for this document.

Paul, would the following text be more accurate?

   Rationale: For various reasons, in practice DH keys are typically
   generated in lengths that are powers of two (e.g., 2^10 = 1024 bits,
   2^11 = 2048 bits, 2^12 = 4096 bits).  Because a DH key of 1228 bits
   would be roughly equivalent to only an 80-bit symmetric key
   [RFC3766], it is better to use keys longer than that for the "DHE"
   family of cipher suites.  A DH key of 1926 bits would be roughly
   equivalent to a 100-bit symmetric key [RFC3766] and a DH key of 2048
   bits might be sufficient for at least the next 10 years.  See
   Section 5.5 for additional information on the use of modular Diffie-
   Hellman in TLS.

   As noted in [RFC3766], correcting for the emergence of a TWIRL
   machine would imply that 1024-bit DH keys yield about 65 bits of
   equivalent strength and that a 2048-bit DH key would yield about 92
   bits of equivalent strength.

   Servers SHOULD authenticate using at least 2048-bit certificates.

Your corrections are very much welcome.

Peter


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

Reply via email to