[30771] in Kerberos
Re: FIPS certification
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nicolas Williams)
Sat Feb 28 14:29:14 2009
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:18:50 -0600
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
To: Ken Raeburn <raeburn@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <20090228191850.GZ9992@Sun.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <70288C02-967E-4F6E-A512-BBC2BECC21F9@mit.edu>
Cc: Kerberos mailing list <kerberos@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: kerberos-bounces@mit.edu
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 01:07:50PM -0500, Ken Raeburn wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2009, at 12:43, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > It might be possible to dispatch on krb5_keyblock->magic to determine
> > whether it the new fields are there, and in places where a passed in
> > krb5_keyblock is allocated on the stack, the called function could
> > allocate a new-style krb5_keyblock and import the key. (How many such
> > places are there? I didn't think there would be that many.) It
> > wouldn't be that pretty, yes, but if it's considered important to
> > preserve the ABI, it's probably doable...
>
> Yeah, that's been considered. It's a little risky in that sometimes
> the "magic" field just isn't initialized (especially in an application-
> provided keyblock), and adding a dependence on it (at least on it
Actually, is it ever initialized when allocated on the stack? I suspect
not.
It's been pointed out to me that it's not necessary to change
krb5_keyblock just to use OpenSSL, and I think one could argue the same
for PKCS#11. However, leaving krb5_keyblock unchanged is sub-optimal,
and, most importantly for performance, means you can't cache derived
keys in the keyblock itself (you could have a hash table).
> *not* having a certain 32-bit value that indicates the extended form)
> would be a minor ABI change. I think the risk is probably low, and
> it'd probably be worth the extra ugliness to get the benefits.
>
> We'd also still need to handle the krb5_keyblock structure embedded in
> krb5_creds; in that instance it wouldn't be extensible.
>
> It'd be so nice to be able to do a new API for a v2.0 someday. :-)
Yes.
________________________________________________
Kerberos mailing list Kerberos@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos
