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
|
Return-Path: <zooko@z.cash>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C40839D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 1 Jul 2016 22:42:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qk0-f171.google.com (mail-qk0-f171.google.com
[209.85.220.171])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 242E518B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 1 Jul 2016 22:42:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qk0-f171.google.com with SMTP id a125so226656796qkc.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 01 Jul 2016 15:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=z-cash.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=KybQedfy2N4xaNeYaYHcEhyo+d1RNzBkeNJqIejUDxM=;
b=WE8gC3h3hYwyWGNFaCNDGuIH+OFhKACxlG1XeGH5SLJy5P5fgfwGvxnAse0sLc7v3V
MgAuS/lvWxFEsRPyXkKj0w74LcO8urhHV8lAMaNUQSDdXqOSjUcAkn5rfWQGe7H8S8dm
qyxF5tysLhIdtD/yOj8hFgfumlnoAZ9rm57lBJBXJ8/mAvDiLJz/6gk2xoHHUAUftJeD
fCgtHuaDTOVIggu91xwzEoltnMwmZhYx6UkhDRkZ19gvncsQnnEAFv0CYZvqsADnU6uc
/rN0WyGT6fC4yFyXFdmtQWD7ZDqbMkgMBNnNzalVqR9QjbYtthWsx+o81kgBz5/ealQU
3fJg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=KybQedfy2N4xaNeYaYHcEhyo+d1RNzBkeNJqIejUDxM=;
b=Hhp5B3NklKxT4ETefbfhGYFMwiDzq5GlH06DNkfhgPf7Qoo3dLDFyZNAZ8du5Z1fU0
Wavvk9rClLRV8N4vwipf1iVKaLRnjGr7hA/PYlExJIbCMW9tS/GYX32d/WG4vTF+JMzc
xml16BY7iw7ZbvByHcu91v3Hcs4ertV9NnISo2QB2IM2asGH0GDeHf6Iu1D8rLdoqyb/
UrtZFc16Zv14WtTBfbeRmkj468vwh26CABYuLW13SHmObJ4MpP7aMAAmOnZuu7oHD0rU
748SDi1G4EqpegnNQcjBBjA1yUNWmeNH6eJSuQM267M1Y6izNc7RQ55kxpZWwczGhBKA
oKlg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIGc1H5Hjqcea5BRxJAo3R4X1XjzYVNWX2iFhQFF9VSqdcX4OIMVxcYZdqErITVifz66tTZbtjhT1r9HA==
X-Received: by 10.55.104.70 with SMTP id d67mr906842qkc.60.1467412940247; Fri,
01 Jul 2016 15:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.200.45.156 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 15:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <87oa6iavky.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
References: <87h9cecad5.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
<577224E8.6070307@jonasschnelli.ch>
<8760ssdd1u.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
<CAEM=y+XKQZVz6UieB-nDy_C9xTmXiBB3-atuuZkxzmPoSVPOJw@mail.gmail.com>
<87oa6iavky.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
From: Zooko Wilcox <zooko@z.cash>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 22:42:19 +0000
Message-ID: <CADorodhC=UvQmiNVSd91dA57PyYydDH+uUUp_Aj5CsN-EG-e4g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,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: Fri, 01 Jul 2016 22:42:21 -0000
I haven't been able to find the beginning of this thread, so apologies
if I've misunderstood what this is for, but it _sounds_ like we're
re-inventing HKDF.
I'd recommend reading the paper about HKDF. It stands out among crypto
papers for having a nice clear justification for each of its design
decisions, so you can see why they did it (very slightly) differently
than the various constructions proposed up-thread.
https://eprint.iacr.org/2010/264
Also, of course, it is a great idea to re-use a standard
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5869) and widely-understood crypto
algorithm to reduce risk of both cryptographer errors and implementor
errors.
Of course, the cost of that is the you sometimes end up computing
something that is a tiny bit more complicated or inefficient than a
custom algorithm for our current use case. IMHO that's a cheap price
to pay.
Regards,
Zooko
|
