RE: [ws-sx] RE: Issue ER017: Conflict Nonce reuse description in the current WS-SC 1.3

["Hal Lockhart" <hlockhar@bea.com>]

I agree with Mark.

Hal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 11:28 AM
> To: Jan Alexander; Marc Goodner; Hyen V Chung;
ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ws-sx] RE: Issue ER017: Conflict Nonce reuse description in
the
> current WS-SC 1.3
> 
> On the last call it was discussed if this was just an editorial
mistake,
> e.g. the text at 889 is supposed to say SHOULD NOT instead of SHOULD.
> There was a question if this was actually intentional for
cryptographic
> reasons. Jan and I have looked into this some more and are convinced
it is
> an editorial mistake, there are not any cryptographic reasons that the
> nonce should be reused.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 6:53 AM
> To: Hyen V Chung; ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ws-sx] Issue ER017: Conflict Nonce reuse description in the
> current WS-SC 1.3
> 
> Issue ER017
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hyen V Chung [mailto:hychung@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:35 AM
> To: ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: Marc Goodner
> Subject: NEW Issue: Conflict Nonce reuse description in the current
WS-SC
> 1.3
> 
> 
> PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL OR START A DISCUSSISON THREAD UNTIL
THE
> ISSUE IS ASSIGNED A NUMBER.
> The issues coordinators will notify the list when that has occurred.
> 
> Protocol:  ws-sc
> 
> WS-SecureConversation 1.3 OASIS Standard 1 March 2007 (
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-secureconversation/200512/ws-
> secureconversation-1.3-os.pdf
> )
> 
> Artifact:  spec
> 
> Type: design
> 
> Title: Conflict Nonce reuse description found in the 1.3 specification
> 
> Description:
> 
> Line 796 - 799: It stated that nonce is not recommended to be reused.
> The policy presents a method for specifying this information. 796 The
> RECOMMENDED approach is to use separate nonces and have independently
> generated keys for 797 signing and encrypting in each direction.
> Furthermore, it is RECOMMENDED that new keys be derived 798 for each
> message (i.e., previous nonces are not re-used).
> 
> Where as in Line 886 - 890: It stated that the same nonce should be
used
> for subsequent derivation.
> 886 If specified, this optional element specifies a base64 encoded
nonce
> that is used in the key 887 derivation function for this derived key.
If
> this isn't specified, it is assumed that the recipient 888 knows the
nonce
> to use. Note that once a nonce is used for a derivation sequence, the
same
> 889 nonce SHOULD be used for all subsequent derivations.
> 
> 
> Related issues:
> 
> 
> Proposed Resolution:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Henry
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
> OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
> OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php