1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8511F9D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 29 Jun 2016 20:13:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail149084.authsmtp.net (outmail149084.authsmtp.net
[62.13.149.84])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD09FE2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 29 Jun 2016 20:13:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232])
by punt22.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u5TKDKHH072776;
Wed, 29 Jun 2016 21:13:20 +0100 (BST)
Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com
[52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u5TKDIUG094790
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
Wed, 29 Jun 2016 21:13:19 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 34AF0400F7;
Wed, 29 Jun 2016 20:11:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 9AA522056A; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 16:13:17 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 16:13:17 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20160629201317.GA4855@fedora-21-dvm>
References: <87h9cecad5.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
<577224E8.6070307@jonasschnelli.ch>
<CAP+0UNKqDknS-w6QyCJ0_ra71YfsDDtSdSBYoguUicW2oNMLvQ@mail.gmail.com>
<5774149E.1010105@jonasschnelli.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5774149E.1010105@jonasschnelli.ch>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Server-Quench: ec3e4ce4-3e35-11e6-829e-00151795d556
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aQdMdAsUEkAaAgsB AmAbWVVeUV57WGo7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq
T0pMXVMcUQAMemh4 Y2keWx11fgUIcHx3 ZAg3DXMOWBcvcVt+
F01RCGwHMGF9YGIW BV1YdwJRcQRDe0tA b1YxNiYHcQ5VPz4z
GA41ejw8IwAXAgVt ClhQdBoPWktDGTB0 ZzUrNgIUPWRYHn9b
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1037:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 151 use of HMAC_SHA512
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 20:13:23 -0000
--tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 08:34:06PM +0200, Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev wr=
ote:
> > Based on previous crypto analysis result, the actual security of SHA512
> > is not significantly higher than SHA256.
> > maybe we should consider SHA3?
>=20
> As far as I know the security of the symmetric cipher key mainly depends
> on the PRNG and the ECDH scheme.
>=20
> The HMAC_SHA512 will be used to "drive" keys from the ECDH shared secret.
> HMAC_SHA256 would be sufficient but I have specified SHA512 to allow to
> directly derive 512bits which allows to have two 256bit keys with one
> HMAC operation (same pattern is used in BIP for the key/chaincode
> derivation).
What's the rational for doing that "directly" rather than with two SHA256
operations? (specifcially SHA256(0 . thing), SHA256(1 + thing) for the two
parts we need to derive)
Reducing the # of basic cryptographic primitives you need to implement a
standard needs is a good thing.
--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
--tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXdCvaAAoJEGOZARBE6K+ylGEH/Rn/f4D+Hm8xEvi1iouZD32f
vAkiW1yA4j+ntGTrinn7/nMvR6WFYxPSHh3ocN3kj0+awe+hES37Iak96dmJEri2
3YX6MH2P1u0/uMcNpOGFx3zlmgANsLaCvwRffe0790W5ec19hpdHUSdhnl5xUlpp
XZllENOo3ht5tzqeV+BBe/PS0uEtTMggnvjuHD3UzGUrmRM8cOhcFT/yLpWK7xoV
/AKcGM2IH/mUgO1K3n2Kl1SxtG8EClVSYbjYIiYPmmXOIeZePamqLdd/UK6bUybo
KHOlyOLpW69ijv4gEtVOyRdRGTQh9ogbE338R7I6FM83Ml4tNzguJHqqa3uTDw4=
=D/g9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT--
|
