Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 20:26:44 -0400 From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org> To: Eric McCorkle <eric@metricspace.net> Cc: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net>, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: UNS: Re: Trust system write-up Message-ID: <23022.35012.399346.198594@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <d06c911a-9e2a-901f-b2bb-4fa2c26b2d59@metricspace.net> References: <1a9bbbf6-d975-0e77-b199-eb1ec0486c8a@metricspace.net> <1508775285.34364.2.camel@freebsd.org> <e4fb486c-fe8a-571e-8c95-f5f68c44b77c@metricspace.net> <72903.1508799185@kaos.jnpr.net> <d06c911a-9e2a-901f-b2bb-4fa2c26b2d59@metricspace.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 20:00:53 -0400, Eric McCorkle <eric@metricspace.net> said: > However, there is a definite advantage to having one signature for a > huge number of MACs. Moreover, as I mention in the paper, the most > feasible quantum-safe signature scheme at the present is SPHINCS, which > has signatures about 40Kib in size. That's pretty terrible if you're > signing each executable, but if you're signing 20-30k MACs at 16-32 > bytes per code plus a path, suddenly a 40Kib signature doesn't look so > bad anymore. It would be pretty great to roll out a trust > infrastructure AND viable quantum-safe signatures. > I could also see a combined scheme, say, where ELF files carry a UUID > which indexes into a MAC manifest. Since packages are already distributed with signatures over the entire package manifest, it would be nice if you could use the package system to feed this. -GAWollman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?23022.35012.399346.198594>