Subject: Re: [Trans] [trans] #83 (rfc6962-bis): CT should mandate the use of deterministic ECDSA

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 01:48:07 -0000

#83: CT should mandate the use of deterministic ECDSA

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * owner:  [email-masked] =>
     [email-masked]
 * status:  reopened => new
 * milestone:  milestone1 => review

Comment:

 About RSA: The v1.5 signature scheme (currently required in -bis) is
 deterministic. The new one (RSASSA-PSS) is not, see:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PKCS_1
 Seems like this ticket can be closed as fixed.

-- 
-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                 |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                  |   Milestone:  review
Component:  rfc6962-bis            |     Version:
 Severity:  -                      |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                         |
-----------------------------------+--------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/83#comment:9>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>

---

From: "trans issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 09:47:20 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Should we add some text to the Security Considerations section to explain
 _why_ we need to use deterministic signature schemes?

 If we don't, then in a few years from now somebody might say "Hey, let's
 upgrade CT to use RSASSA-PSS 'cos it's newer".

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/trans/trac/ticket/83#comment:10>
trans <http://tools.ietf.org/trans/>