[Sea-sec] Responses to Conditional Approvals of Security WG Documents

Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int Ignacio.Aguilar.Sanchez at esa.int
Tue Jul 10 09:09:17 UTC 2018


All,

I agree with the recommendation for the Glossary.

For the Algorithms pink sheet and with the purpose to better inform the 
readers for the selection of key length, I would add to Howie's proposal 
the following informative reference document in Annex B.

Daniel J. Bernstein (editor). Challenges in Authenticated Encryption. 
ECRYPT-CSA D1.1, Revision 1.05, 1 March 2017. 
https://chae.cr.yp.to/whitepaper.html

The document is written by some of the best cryptographers in the world 
and is maintained, that is, it will be updated whenever new results are 
available.
It could be cited in the note where users are discouraged to use smaller 
sizes. 

I believe we have discussed this reference on a previous meeting. 
Be aware that moving to 256-bit for AES key is currently considered likely 
to be an overkill (see chapter 1.5 for a consideration of Quantum 
computers and Grover's algorithm). 
The editor and some members of the group are aware of the extreme 
particulars of space application. In the website that hosts the 
competition for a new authenticated encryption algorithm (
https://competitions.cr.yp.to/caesar.html) they have specifically pointed 
to a contribution Daniel and I submitted in 2012 with that purpose (
https://competitions.cr.yp.to/features.html). We wanted to establish a 
connection between cryptographic research and our future needs ('our' 
meaning all space agencies).


Kind regards,

Ignacio





 

Ignacio Aguilar Sánchez
Communication Systems Engineer
Electrical Engineering Department

European Space Research and Technology Centre
Keplerlaan 1, PO Box 299, 2200 AG Noordwijk, The Netherlands
Tel. (31) 71 565 5695
Fax (31) 71 565 5418
Email: ignacio.aguilar.sanchez at esa.int
www.esa.int



From:   "Weiss, Howard" <Howard.Weiss at parsons.com>
To:     "sea-sec at mailman.ccsds.org" <sea-sec at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:   09/07/2018 19:19
Subject:        [Sea-sec] Responses to Conditional Approvals of Security 
WG      Documents
Sent by:        "SEA-SEC" <sea-sec-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org>



All,

Two of our documents (Security Glossary and Algorithm Pink Sheets) have 
recently completed CESG polling.  The intent of the poll was to enable the 
documents release for Agency Review.

Both documents received "Approve with Conditions" from the MOIMS AD and 
D/AD.

For the Security Glossary, the "condition" received was:

Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions): Since this book it is merely 
a glossary of terms, it is not clear to me why it has not been taken 
this opportunity to silverise the original GB and put the terms in 
SANA 

For the Algorithms Pink Sheets (where the only changes were the increased 
key sizes) the condition received was:

Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions): The main change is the 
strenghen of the authenticaltion keys. These have been increased, 
thus making implementations that followed the previous CCSDS 
recommentation not-compliant. Why has the document update not been 
made in a backward-compatible manner, still strongly recommending 
the new key lengths?

For the glossary, I would like to respond with the following:

All terms in the SANA Glossary are defined in CCSDS documents; the 
definitions in those documents are the source of the SANA Glossary,
The update to the Security Glossary is an actual update to the glossary; 
even if it were someday decided to retire the Security Glossary in favor 
of a SANA-only glossary, the update would still have to happen first,
The change in document color is happening in conjunction with the update, 
but it is not what the CESG is being asked to approve (the CMC already 
approved the change in color),
Therefore, the condition is actually not a condition that applies to the 
document update and should be withdrawn.

For the Algorithms pink sheets, I would like to respond with the 
following:
The increased key sizes will be made a "shall" for future missions.  The 
smaller key sizes will remain in the document for backward compatibility 
as "may" specifications for use in older missions although we will include 
a note discouraging the use of the smaller key sizes as being potentially 
vulnerable to attack.

Comments?  Changes?  Other final suggestions?  Please respond quickly so 
we can expedite getting the documents into Agency review so we will 
receive RIDs in time to review at the Fall meetings.

Thanks.

regards,

howie


Howard Weiss, CISSP

PARSONS, Inc.
7110 Samuel Morse Drive
Columbia, MD 21046
443-430-8089 (office)
443-494-9087 (cell)
443-430-8238 (fax)
howard.weiss at parsons.com
www.parsons.com

Please consider the environment before printing this message

NOTICE: This email message and all attachments transmitted with it may 
contain privileged and confidential information, and information that is 
protected by, and proprietary to, Parsons Corporation, and is intended 
solely for the use of the addressee for the specific purpose set forth in 
this communication. If the reader of this message is not the intended 
recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, 
distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is 
strictly prohibited, and you should delete this message and all copies and 
backups thereof. The recipient may not further distribute or use any of 
the information contained herein without the express written authorization 
of the sender. If you have received this message in error, or if you have 
any questions regarding the use of the proprietary information contained 
therein, please contact the sender of this message immediately, and the 
sender will provide you with further instructions.
_______________________________________________
SEA-SEC mailing list
SEA-SEC at mailman.ccsds.org
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sea-sec



This message is sent for information and/or discussion purposes only.
It shall neither be binding nor construed as constituting a commitment for ESA.
It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above.
It may contain proprietary information and/or protected content.
Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately.
ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect personal data.
In case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo at esa.int).

Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sea-sec/attachments/20180710/853e7087/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 1155 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sea-sec/attachments/20180710/853e7087/attachment.gif>


More information about the SEA-SEC mailing list