Re: Adding a nounce before hashing as covert channel
andrewg via Gnupg-devel <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.encryption.gpg.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2024-12-12 11:58, Wiktor Kwapisiewicz wrote: > > On 12.12.2024 11:43, Andrew Gallagher via Gnupg-devel wrote: >> It should be noted that the salt in v6 signatures also helps to >> protect against fault-based attacks. >> See https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/1014 > > I'm not entirely sure that the v6 salt helps in this case - it > influences the final digest but the fault attack then operates on that > new digest. I've read section 9. Countermeasures and couldn't find any > mention of salt being effective. Fault attacks require the generation of multiple signatures over the same message digest. With an unsalted signature, it is sufficient to induce a victim to sign the same message twice with the same timestamp. With a salted signature, it is vanishingly improbable that the same digest will ever be produced. A _______________________________________________ Gnupg-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-devel