Re: RFC 4253 possible errata

Hi Mark,

On Jun 21, 2017, at 11:20 AM, Mark D. Baushke <[email protected]> wrote:
> While working with the IETF AD Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> doing the AD
> review of draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-modp-dh-sha2, the topic came up of
> validation of the Diffie-Hellman public key on both client and server
> (peers).
> 
> The RFC 4253 Section 8 writes:
> 
> |8.  Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange
> |
> |   The Diffie-Hellman (DH) key exchange provides a shared secret that
> |   cannot be determined by either party alone.  The key exchange is
> |   combined with a signature with the host key to provide host
> |   authentication.  This key exchange method provides explicit server
> |   authentication as defined in Section 7.
> |
> |   The following steps are used to exchange a key.  In this, C is the
> |   client; S is the server; p is a large safe prime; g is a generator
> |   for a subgroup of GF(p); q is the order of the subgroup; V_S is S's
> |   identification string; V_C is C's identification string; K_S is S's
> |   public host key; I_C is C's SSH_MSG_KEXINIT message and I_S is S's
> |   SSH_MSG_KEXINIT message that have been exchanged before this part
> |   begins.
> |
> |   1. C generates a random number x (1 < x < q) and computes
> |      e = g^x mod p.  C sends e to S.
> |
> ...elided...
> 
> |   Values of 'e' or 'f' that are not in the range [1, p-1] MUST NOT be
> |   sent or accepted by either side.  If this condition is violated, the
> |   key exchange fails.
> 
> ...elided...
> 
> The z in range [1, p-1] notation, specifies a closed interval which
> includes the end points which is equivant to 1 <= z <= p-1. The (1, p-1)
> notation specifies an open interval which excludes the endpoints 1 < z <
> p-2.

[Ron] I don’t understand the “p-2” here. Is that a typo? Also, if you want to convert from the closed range [1, p-1], shouldn’t that to be to an open range of (0, p), which would correspond to “0 < z < p”?


> Eric noted that https://tools.ietf.org/rfcmarkup?rfc=7919#section-5.1
> uses open endpoints.
> 
> Eric suggested that my draft should include text that is similar to the
> ext in the RFC 7919 to correct this errata.

[Ron] I see RFC 7919 refers to a closed range [2, p-2]. This would be a change from what is allowed by RFC 4253 today.


> Before I make such a change, I wish understand if what folks have been
> using for the test in their implementations and get a consensus on such
> a change.

[Ron] In asyncssh, the test I’m doing on e & f is “1 <= e < p” and “1 <= f < p", which is essentially the half-open range of [1, p) that is equivalent to the closed range [1, p-1] listed in RFC 4253.
-- 
Ron Frederick
[email protected]



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