DOCSLIB.ORG

[PKCS#1] RSA Laboratories, PKCS #1 V2.1: RSA Cryptography Standard, June 14, 2002

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
[PKCS#1] RSA Laboratories, PKCS #1 V2.1: RSA Cryptography Standard, June 14, 2002 [PKCS#1] RSA Laboratories, PKCS #1 v2.1: RSA Cryptography Standard, June 14, 2002, http://www.preserveitall.org/emc-plus/rsa-labs/standards-initiatives/pkcs-rsa- cryptography-standard.htm. [PKCS#5] RSA Laboratories, PKCS #5 v2.1: Password-Based Cryptography Standard, October 5, 2006, http://www.preserveitall.org/emc-plus/rsa-labs/standards- initiatives/pkcs-5-password-based-cryptography-standard.htm. [PKCS#8] RSA Laboratories, PKCS#8 v1.2: Private-Key Information Syntax Standard, November 1, 1993, http://www.preserveitall.org/emc-plus/rsa-labs/standards- initiatives/pkcs-8-private-key-information-syntax-stand.htm. [PKCS#10] RSA Laboratories, PKCS #10 v1.7: Certification Request Syntax Standard, May 26, 2000, http://www.preserveitall.org/emc-plus/rsa-labs/standards- initiatives/pkcs10-certification-request-syntax-standard.htm. [PKCS#11] OASIS PKCS #11 Cryptographic Token Interface Base Specification Version 3.0 [POLY1305] Daniel J. Bernstein. The Poly1305-AES Message-Authentication Code. In Henri Gilbert and Helena Handschuh, editors, Fast Software Encryption: 12th International Workshop, FSE 2005, Paris, France, February 21-23, 2005, Revised Selected Papers, volume 3557 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 32–49. Springer, 2005. [RFC1319] B. Kaliski, The MD2 Message-Digest Algorithm, IETF RFC 1319, Apr 1992, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1319.txt. [RFC1320] R. Rivest, The MD4 Message-Digest Algorithm, IETF RFC 1320, April 1992, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1320.txt. [RFC1321] R. Rivest, The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm, IETF RFC 1321, April 1992, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1321.txt. [RFC1421] J. Linn, Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part I: Message Encryption and Authentication Procedures, IETF RFC 1421, February 1993, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1421.txt. [RFC1424] B. Kaliski, Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part IV: Key Certification and Related Services, IETF RFC 1424, Feb 1993, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1424.txt. [RFC2104] H. Krawczyk, M. Bellare, R. Canetti, HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication, IETF RFC 2104, February 1997, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2104.txt. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels”, BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt. [RFC2898] B. Kaliski, PKCS #5: Password-Based Cryptography Specification Version 2.0, IETF RFC 2898, September 2000, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2898.txt. [RFC2986] M. Nystrom and B. Kaliski, PKCS #10: Certification Request Syntax Specification Version 1.7, IETF RFC2986, November 2000, http://www.rfc- editor.org/rfc/rfc2986.txt. [RFC3447] J. Jonsson, B. Kaliski, Public-Key Cryptography Standards (PKCS) #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications Version 2.1, IETF RFC 3447, Feb 2003, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3447.txt. [RFC3629] F. Yergeau, UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646, IETF RFC 3629, November 2003, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3629.txt. [RFC3686] R. Housley, Using Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Counter Mode with IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP), IETF RFC 3686, January 2004, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3686.txt. [RFC4210] C. Adams, S. Farrell, T. Kause and T. Mononen, Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate Management Protocol (CMP), IETF RFC 4210, September 2005, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4210.txt. kmip-spec-v2.0-wd03 Working Draft 03 10 January 2018 Standards Track Draft Copyright © OASIS Open 2018. All Rights Reserved. Page 14 of 214 Response Payload Item REQUIRED Description Unique Identifier Yes The Unique Identifier of the object. Lease Time Yes An interval (in seconds) that specifies the amount of time that the object MAY be used until a new lease needs to be obtained. Last Change Date Yes The date and time indicating when the latest change was made to the contents or any attribute of the specified object. Table 226: Obtain Lease Response Payload 6.1.29.1 Error Handling - Obtain Lease This section details the specific Result Reasons that SHALL be returned for errors detected in a Obtain Lease Operation. Error Definition Result Status Result Reason No object with the specified Unique Operation Failed Item Not Found Identifier exists The server determines that a new lease Operation Failed Permission Denied is not permitted to be issued for the specified cryptographic object Object is archived Operation Failed Object Archived Table 227: Obtain Lease Errors 6.1.30 PKCS#11 This operation makes the server perform a PKCS 11 operation. Request Payload Item REQUIRED Description PKCS#11 Function Yes The function to perform PKCS#11 Input Parameters Yes The parameters to the function. The format is specified in the PKCS#11 Profile and the [PKCS#11] standard document. Table 228: PKCS#11 Request Payload kmip-spec-v2.0-wd03 Working Draft 03 10 January 2018 Standards Track Draft Copyright © OASIS Open 2018. All Rights Reserved. Page 106 of 214 Response Payload Item REQUIRED Description PKCS#11 Function Yes The function that was performed. PKCS#11 Output Parameters Yes The parameters output from the function. The format is specified in the PKCS#11 Profile and the [PKCS#11] standard document. PKCS# Return Code Yes Long Integer, The PKCS#11 return code as specified in the CK_RV values in [PKCS#11] Table 229: PKCS#11 Response Payload 6.1.30.1 Error Handling – PKCS#11 This section details the specific Result Reasons that SHALL be returned for errors detected in a Pkcs#11 Operation.. Error Definition Result Status Result Reason PKCS#11 Function not known to server Operation Failed Invalid Field Badly formatted Input Parameters Operation Failed Invalid Field Result Reason not CKR_OK Success Table 230: PKCS#11 Errors 6.1.306.1.31 Poll This operation is used to poll the server in order to obtain the status of an outstanding asynchronous operation. The correlation value of the original operation SHALL be specified in the request. The response to this operation SHALL NOT be asynchronous. Request Payload Item REQUIRED Description Asynchronous Correlation Value Yes Specifies the request being polled. Table 231228: Poll Request Payload The server SHALL reply with one of two responses: If the operation has not completed, the response SHALL contain no payload and a Result Status of Pending. If the operation has completed, the response SHALL contain the appropriate payload for the operation. This response SHALL be identical to the response that would have been sent if the operation had completed synchronously. 6.1.30.16.1.31.1 Error Handling – Poll This section details the specific Result Reasons that SHALL be returned for errors detected in a Poll Operation. kmip-spec-v2.0-wd03 Working Draft 03 10 January 2018 Standards Track Draft Copyright © OASIS Open 2018. All Rights Reserved. Page 107 of 214 MAC Verify 00000024 RNG Retrieve 00000025 RNG Seed 00000026 Hash 00000027 Create Split Key 00000028 Join Split Key 00000029 Import 0000002A Export 0000002B Log 0000002C Extensions 8XXXXXXX Table 361358: Operation Enumeration 11.32 Padding Method Enumeration Padding Method Name Value None 00000001 OAEP 00000002 PKCS5 00000003 SSL3 00000004 Zeros 00000005 ANSI X9.23 00000006 ISO 10126 00000007 PKCS1 v1.5 00000008 X9.31 00000009 PSS 0000000A Extensions 8XXXXXXX Table 362359: Padding Method Enumeration 11.33 PKCS#11 Function Enumeration This is specified in [PKCS#11] via the CK_FUNCTION_LIST table in the header files. kmip-spec-v2.0-wd03 Working Draft 03 10 January 2018 Standards Track Draft Copyright © OASIS Open 2018. All Rights Reserved. Page 174 of 214.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On the NIST Lightweight Cryptography Standardization
    On the NIST Lightweight Cryptography Standardization Meltem S¨onmez Turan NIST Lightweight Cryptography Team ECC 2019: 23rd Workshop on Elliptic Curve Cryptography December 2, 2019 Outline • NIST's Cryptography Standards • Overview - Lightweight Cryptography • NIST Lightweight Cryptography Standardization Process • Announcements 1 NIST's Cryptography Standards National Institute of Standards and Technology • Non-regulatory federal agency within U.S. Department of Commerce. • Founded in 1901, known as the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) prior to 1988. • Headquarters in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and laboratories in Boulder, Colorado. • Employs around 6,000 employees and associates. NIST's Mission to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life. 2 NIST Organization Chart Laboratory Programs Computer Security Division • Center for Nanoscale Science and • Cryptographic Technology Technology • Secure Systems and Applications • Communications Technology Lab. • Security Outreach and Integration • Engineering Lab. • Security Components and Mechanisms • Information Technology Lab. • Security Test, Validation and • Material Measurement Lab. Measurements • NIST Center for Neutron Research • Physical Measurement Lab. Information Technology Lab. • Advanced Network Technologies • Applied and Computational Mathematics • Applied Cybersecurity • Computer Security • Information Access • Software and Systems • Statistical
    [Show full text]
  • TS 102 176-1 V2.1.1 (2011-07) Technical Specification
    ETSI TS 102 176-1 V2.1.1 (2011-07) Technical Specification Electronic Signatures and Infrastructures (ESI); Algorithms and Parameters for Secure Electronic Signatures; Part 1: Hash functions and asymmetric algorithms 2 ETSI TS 102 176-1 V2.1.1 (2011-07) Reference RTS/ESI-000080-1 Keywords e-commerce, electronic signature, security ETSI 650 Route des Lucioles F-06921 Sophia Antipolis Cedex - FRANCE Tel.: +33 4 92 94 42 00 Fax: +33 4 93 65 47 16 Siret N° 348 623 562 00017 - NAF 742 C Association à but non lucratif enregistrée à la Sous-Préfecture de Grasse (06) N° 7803/88 Important notice Individual copies of the present document can be downloaded from: http://www.etsi.org The present document may be made available in more than one electronic version or in print. In any case of existing or perceived difference in contents between such versions, the reference version is the Portable Document Format (PDF). In case of dispute, the reference shall be the printing on ETSI printers of the PDF version kept on a specific network drive within ETSI Secretariat. Users of the present document should be aware that the document may be subject to revision or change of status. Information on the current status of this and other ETSI documents is available at http://portal.etsi.org/tb/status/status.asp If you find errors in the present document, please send your comment to one of the following services: http://portal.etsi.org/chaircor/ETSI_support.asp Copyright Notification No part may be reproduced except as authorized by written permission.
    [Show full text]
  • Key Derivation Functions and Their GPU Implementation
    MASARYK UNIVERSITY FACULTY}w¡¢£¤¥¦§¨ OF I !"#$%&'()+,-./012345<yA|NFORMATICS Key derivation functions and their GPU implementation BACHELOR’S THESIS Ondrej Mosnáˇcek Brno, Spring 2015 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ cbna ii Declaration Hereby I declare, that this paper is my original authorial work, which I have worked out by my own. All sources, references and literature used or excerpted during elaboration of this work are properly cited and listed in complete reference to the due source. Ondrej Mosnáˇcek Advisor: Ing. Milan Brož iii Acknowledgement I would like to thank my supervisor for his guidance and support, and also for his extensive contributions to the Cryptsetup open- source project. Next, I would like to thank my family for their support and pa- tience and also to my friends who were falling behind schedule just like me and thus helped me not to panic. Last but not least, access to computing and storage facilities owned by parties and projects contributing to the National Grid In- frastructure MetaCentrum, provided under the programme “Projects of Large Infrastructure for Research, Development, and Innovations” (LM2010005), is also greatly appreciated. v Abstract Key derivation functions are a key element of many cryptographic applications. Password-based key derivation functions are designed specifically to derive cryptographic keys from low-entropy sources (such as passwords or passphrases) and to counter brute-force and dictionary attacks. However, the most widely adopted standard for password-based key derivation, PBKDF2, as implemented in most applications, is highly susceptible to attacks using Graphics Process- ing Units (GPUs).
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines on Cryptographic Algorithms Usage and Key Management
    EPC342-08 Version 7.0 4 November 2017 [X] Public – [ ] Internal Use – [ ] Confidential – [ ] Strictest Confidence Distribution: Publicly available GUIDELINES ON CRYPTOGRAPHIC ALGORITHMS USAGE AND KEY MANAGEMENT Abstract This document defines guidelines on cryptographic algorithms usage and key management. Document Reference EPC342-08 Issue Version 7.0 Date of Issue 22 November 2017 Reason for Issue Maintenance of document Produced by EPC Authorised by EPC Document History This document was first produced by ECBS as TR 406, with its latest ECBS version published in September 2005. The document has been handed over to the EPC which is responsible for its yearly maintenance. DISCLAIMER: Whilst the European Payments Council (EPC) has used its best endeavours to make sure that all the information, data, documentation (including references) and other material in the present document are accurate and complete, it does not accept liability for any errors or omissions. EPC will not be liable for any claims or losses of any nature arising directly or indirectly from use of the information, data, documentation or other material in the present document. Conseil Européen des Paiements AISBL– Cours Saint-Michel 30A – B 1040 Brussels Tel: +32 2 733 35 33 – Fax: +32 2 736 49 88 Enterprise N° 0873.268.927 – www.epc-cep.eu – [email protected] © 2016 Copyright European Payments Council (EPC) AISBL: Reproduction for non-commercial purposes is authorised, with acknowledgement of the source Table of Content MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ............................................................. 5 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 7 1.1 Scope of the document ...................................................... 7 1.2 Document structure .......................................................... 7 1.3 Recommendations ............................................................ 8 1.4 Implementation best practices .........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Public Key Cryptography Public Key Cryptography
    Public Key Cryptography Public Key Cryptography • Symmetric Key: – Same key used for encryption and decrypiton – Same key used for message integrity and validation • Public-Key Cryptography – Use one key to encrypt or sign messages – Use another key to decrypt or validate messages • Keys – Public key known to the world and used to send you a message – Only your private key can decrypt the message Public Key Private Key Plaintext Ciphertext Plaintext Encryption Decryption ENTS 689i | Network Immunity | Fall 2008 Lecture 2 Public Key Cryptography • Motivations – In symmetric key cryptography, a key was needed between every pair of users wishing to securely communicate • O(n2) keys – Problem of establishing a key with remote person with whom you wish to communicate • Advantages to Public Key Cryptography – Key distribution much easier: everyone can known your public key as long as your private key remains secret – Fewer keys needed • O(n) keys • Disadvantages – Slow, often up to 1000x slower than symmetric-key cryptography ENTS 689i | Network Immunity | Fall 2008 Lecture 2 Cryptography and Complexity • Three classes of complexity: – P: solvable in polynomial time, O(nc) – NP: nondeterministic solutions in polynomial time, deterministic solutions in exponential time – EXP: exponential solutions, O(cn) • Cryptographic problems should be: increasing P – Encryption should be P difficult – Decryption should be P with key NP – Decryption should be NP for attacker EXP • Need problems where complexity of solution depends on knowledge of a key ENTS
    [Show full text]
  • BIP Note 18 Binding Implementation Practice (BIP) Note
    Superannuation Transaction Network BIP Note 18 Binding Implementation Practice (BIP) Note Title: TLS Configuration and Cryptography Date: 10 Nov 201 5 Standards Version: 1.0 Scope [ x ] transport layer Status: [ ] Draft [ ] message payload [x ] Ratified [ x ] security Live Date: 25 February 2016 On this date this BIP note will be binding on all participants 1. Change This document sets requirements for SSL/TLS configuration within the STN. 2. Reason for Change Secure message exchange within the STN is fully dependent on HTTPS protocol (HTTP over TLS). SSL 3.0 has existed for at least 15 years. It was superseded by TLS 1.0 which was in turn replaced by TLS 1.1 and TLS 1.2. Cryptography standards used in SSL and early versions of TLS are now deprecated and do not provide sufficient level of security. Clause 6.6(a) of Superannuation Data and Gateway Services Standards for Gateway Operators transaction within the Superannuation Transaction Network document requires STN gateways to use “a minimum level of protection of Transport Layer Security (TLS) of version 1.1 or above”. Majority of the STN gateways supports TLS versions 1.0 through 1.2 at the server side (some gateways still support SSL 3.0). However, only a few gateways support modern TLS versions at the client side resulting majority of transactions within the STN being sent through TLS 1.0 channel. In order to eliminate vulnerabilities of the obsolete SSL/TLS protocols, SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.0 must be completely disabled. Mozilla Foundation recommends not to include TLS 1.0 into “Modern” configuration set for web- servers and limits its usage only for backward-compatibility purposes (given that STN is P2P network with a limited number of participants, backward-compatibility issue is not relevant).
    [Show full text]
  • Cs 255 (Introduction to Cryptography)
    CS 255 (INTRODUCTION TO CRYPTOGRAPHY) DAVID WU Abstract. Notes taken in Professor Boneh’s Introduction to Cryptography course (CS 255) in Winter, 2012. There may be errors! Be warned! Contents 1. 1/11: Introduction and Stream Ciphers 2 1.1. Introduction 2 1.2. History of Cryptography 3 1.3. Stream Ciphers 4 1.4. Pseudorandom Generators (PRGs) 5 1.5. Attacks on Stream Ciphers and OTP 6 1.6. Stream Ciphers in Practice 6 2. 1/18: PRGs and Semantic Security 7 2.1. Secure PRGs 7 2.2. Semantic Security 8 2.3. Generating Random Bits in Practice 9 2.4. Block Ciphers 9 3. 1/23: Block Ciphers 9 3.1. Pseudorandom Functions (PRF) 9 3.2. Data Encryption Standard (DES) 10 3.3. Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) 12 3.4. Exhaustive Search Attacks 12 3.5. More Attacks on Block Ciphers 13 3.6. Block Cipher Modes of Operation 13 4. 1/25: Message Integrity 15 4.1. Message Integrity 15 5. 1/27: Proofs in Cryptography 17 5.1. Time/Space Tradeoff 17 5.2. Proofs in Cryptography 17 6. 1/30: MAC Functions 18 6.1. Message Integrity 18 6.2. MAC Padding 18 6.3. Parallel MAC (PMAC) 19 6.4. One-time MAC 20 6.5. Collision Resistance 21 7. 2/1: Collision Resistance 21 7.1. Collision Resistant Hash Functions 21 7.2. Construction of Collision Resistant Hash Functions 22 7.3. Provably Secure Compression Functions 23 8. 2/6: HMAC And Timing Attacks 23 8.1. HMAC 23 8.2.
    [Show full text]
  • The Double Ratchet Algorithm
    The Double Ratchet Algorithm Trevor Perrin (editor) Moxie Marlinspike Revision 1, 2016-11-20 Contents 1. Introduction 3 2. Overview 3 2.1. KDF chains . 3 2.2. Symmetric-key ratchet . 5 2.3. Diffie-Hellman ratchet . 6 2.4. Double Ratchet . 13 2.6. Out-of-order messages . 17 3. Double Ratchet 18 3.1. External functions . 18 3.2. State variables . 19 3.3. Initialization . 19 3.4. Encrypting messages . 20 3.5. Decrypting messages . 20 4. Double Ratchet with header encryption 22 4.1. Overview . 22 4.2. External functions . 26 4.3. State variables . 26 4.4. Initialization . 26 4.5. Encrypting messages . 27 4.6. Decrypting messages . 28 5. Implementation considerations 29 5.1. Integration with X3DH . 29 5.2. Recommended cryptographic algorithms . 30 6. Security considerations 31 6.1. Secure deletion . 31 6.2. Recovery from compromise . 31 6.3. Cryptanalysis and ratchet public keys . 31 1 6.4. Deletion of skipped message keys . 32 6.5. Deferring new ratchet key generation . 32 6.6. Truncating authentication tags . 32 6.7. Implementation fingerprinting . 32 7. IPR 33 8. Acknowledgements 33 9. References 33 2 1. Introduction The Double Ratchet algorithm is used by two parties to exchange encrypted messages based on a shared secret key. Typically the parties will use some key agreement protocol (such as X3DH [1]) to agree on the shared secret key. Following this, the parties will use the Double Ratchet to send and receive encrypted messages. The parties derive new keys for every Double Ratchet message so that earlier keys cannot be calculated from later ones.
    [Show full text]
  • Study on the Use of Cryptographic Techniques in Europe
    Study on the use of cryptographic techniques in Europe [Deliverable – 2011-12-19] Updated on 2012-04-20 II Study on the use of cryptographic techniques in Europe Contributors to this report Authors: Edward Hamilton and Mischa Kriens of Analysys Mason Ltd Rodica Tirtea of ENISA Supervisor of the project: Rodica Tirtea of ENISA ENISA staff involved in the project: Demosthenes Ikonomou, Stefan Schiffner Agreements or Acknowledgements ENISA would like to thank the contributors and reviewers of this study. Study on the use of cryptographic techniques in Europe III About ENISA The European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) is a centre of network and information security expertise for the EU, its member states, the private sector and Europe’s citizens. ENISA works with these groups to develop advice and recommendations on good practice in information security. It assists EU member states in implementing relevant EU leg- islation and works to improve the resilience of Europe’s critical information infrastructure and networks. ENISA seeks to enhance existing expertise in EU member states by supporting the development of cross-border communities committed to improving network and information security throughout the EU. More information about ENISA and its work can be found at www.enisa.europa.eu. Contact details For contacting ENISA or for general enquiries on cryptography, please use the following de- tails: E-mail: [email protected] Internet: http://www.enisa.europa.eu Legal notice Notice must be taken that this publication represents the views and interpretations of the au- thors and editors, unless stated otherwise. This publication should not be construed to be a legal action of ENISA or the ENISA bodies unless adopted pursuant to the ENISA Regulation (EC) No 460/2004 as lastly amended by Regulation (EU) No 580/2011.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Security of the PKCS#1 V1.5 Signature Scheme
    On the Security of the PKCS#1 v1.5 Signature Scheme Tibor Jager1 Saqib A. Kakvi1 Alexander May2 September 10, 2018 1Department of Computer Science, Universitat¨ Paderborn ftibor.jager,[email protected] 2Hortz Gortz¨ Institute, Ruhr Universitat¨ Bochum [email protected] Abstract The RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signature algorithm is the most widely used digital signature scheme in practice. Its two main strengths are its extreme simplicity, which makes it very easy to implement, and that verification of signatures is significantly faster than for DSA or ECDSA. Despite the huge practical importance of RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signatures, providing formal evidence for their security based on plausible cryptographic hardness assumptions has turned out to be very difficult. Therefore the most recent version of PKCS#1 (RFC 8017) even recommends a replacement the more complex and less efficient scheme RSA-PSS, as it is provably secure and therefore considered more robust. The main obstacle is that RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 signatures use a deterministic padding scheme, which makes standard proof techniques not applicable. We introduce a new technique that enables the first security proof for RSA-PKCS#1 v1.5 signatures. We prove full existential unforgeability against adaptive chosen-message attacks (EUF-CMA) under the standard RSA assumption. Furthermore, we give a tight proof under the Phi-Hiding assumption. These proofs are in the random oracle model and the parameters deviate slightly from the standard use, because we require a larger output length of the hash function. However, we also show how RSA-PKCS#1 v1.5 signatures can be instantiated in practice such that our security proofs apply.
    [Show full text]
  • SMPTE Standards Transition Issues for NIST/FIPS Requirements V1.1
    SMPTE Standards Transition Issues for NIST/FIPS Requirements v1.1 2010.8.23 DRM inside, Taehyun Kim ETRI, Kisoon Yoon Contents 1 Introduction NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) published second draft special document 1 (SP 800-131, Recommendation for the Transitioning of Cryptographic Algorithms and Key Length) [28] in June, 2010. It includes transition recommendations through 9 items associated with the use of cryptography, whose purpose is to keep the security level being still higher as the more powerful computing techniques are available. The 9 items described in the SP 800-131 are: • Encryption (Sec. 2) • Digital Signature (Sec. 3) • Random Number Generation (Sec. 4) • Key Agreement Using Diffie-Hellman and MQV (Sec. 5) • Key Agreement and Key Transport Using RSA (Sec. 6) • Key Wrapping (Sec. 7) • GDIO Protocol (Sec 8.) • Deriving Additional Keys (Sec. 8) • Hash Function (Sec. 9) • Message Authentication Codes (Sec. 10) Currently, SMPTE documents2 refer to the FIPS (Federal Information Processing Standard) to use its cryptographic algorithms which are Secure Hash Standard (FIPS 180-1, 180-2) [1][2], Digital Signature Standard (FIPS 186-2, Jan. 2000) [4], Random Number Generation (FIPS 186-2, Jan. 2000), Advanced Encryption Standard (FIPS 197, Nov. 2001) [6] and Keyed-Hash Message Authentication Code (FIPS 198-1, Apr. 2002) [7]. As upgrade version of the FIPSs and new recommendation are published from the NIST, we need to consider impacts on the SMPTE standard documents. This report summarizes SMPTE documents in cryptographic point of view and new NIST requirements related to the cryptographic algorithm and strength to which SMPTE standards are referring.
    [Show full text]
  • Nist Sp 800-77 Rev. 1 Guide to Ipsec Vpns
    NIST Special Publication 800-77 Revision 1 Guide to IPsec VPNs Elaine Barker Quynh Dang Sheila Frankel Karen Scarfone Paul Wouters This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-77r1 C O M P U T E R S E C U R I T Y NIST Special Publication 800-77 Revision 1 Guide to IPsec VPNs Elaine Barker Quynh Dang Sheila Frankel* Computer Security Division Information Technology Laboratory Karen Scarfone Scarfone Cybersecurity Clifton, VA Paul Wouters Red Hat Toronto, ON, Canada *Former employee; all work for this publication was done while at NIST This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-77r1 June 2020 U.S. Department of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary National Institute of Standards and Technology Walter Copan, NIST Director and Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology Authority This publication has been developed by NIST in accordance with its statutory responsibilities under the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) of 2014, 44 U.S.C. § 3551 et seq., Public Law (P.L.) 113-283. NIST is responsible for developing information security standards and guidelines, including minimum requirements for federal information systems, but such standards and guidelines shall not apply to national security systems without the express approval of appropriate federal officials exercising policy authority over such systems. This guideline is consistent with the requirements of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130. Nothing in this publication should be taken to contradict the standards and guidelines made mandatory and binding on federal agencies by the Secretary of Commerce under statutory authority.
    [Show full text]