RE: SSH key algorithm updates
Peter Gutmann <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.secsh |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C73F4B5A9D4@uxcn10-5.UoA.auckland.ac.nz> |
Niels Möller <[email protected]> writes: >First, it totally defeats the original purpose of group exchange, which was >to avoid wide use of any particular group, in order to reduce the attacker's >gain from massive precomputation. Something even scarier, first pointed out in the Logjam paper, is that (at least for TLS) some server implementations precompute g^x mod p and reuse it over a period of time, so every client that connects gets the same DH phase 1 value sent to them. It's a nice efficiency "optimisation", but it turns DH into something that works more like RSA (or, since it's DLP, maybe Elgamal) than DH. I wouldn't even have considered that someone would do that until I saw it in the Logjam paper. >Second, if fixed groups are used, then those groups ought to be subject to >both standardization review and negotiation at runtime. The benefit of fixed groups is that, as you mention, they can be reviewed, and also that they're a lot more efficient than on-the-fly keygen, particularly if you have to use full-size safe primes rather than the Lim-Lee swarm-of-small- primes trick. I'm worried about this short, quick draft turning into a tutorial on how not to do DH... Peter.