Subject: Re: DNSSEC-RECORDS ISSUE: DSA from Mandatory to Optional

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:07:22 -0400

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "Hallam-Baker," == Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[email-masked]> writes:
    Hallam-Baker> I think that should accept is reasonable but not should
    Hallam-Baker> support.

  Again, I'm not happy with DSA. I'd rather have something we can actually
use. If we never use it, it won't get tested. 

] Train travel features AC outlets with no take-off restrictions|  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy");  [

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Sep 2003 01:32:05 -0000

Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes:
> There is a security issue with DSA. It requires a random number to be
> generated for each signature.

George Barwood and John Wigley solved that several years ago. In short:
generate the random number as SHA-256(z,m) mod q, where z is a secret
kept by the signer, m is the message, and q is the 160-bit DSA prime.

---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago