CWE ID 327: AbstractNamedCurve.java:94

[Brent Putman]

On 9/23/22 6:19 PM, Nate Klingenstein wrote:
>
> Yes, absolutely.  But if I were the SP in question, I would fear that 
> supplying just a strong EC key in metadata would be more likely to 
> lead to interoperability failures or unencrypted assertions with most 
> IdP's, which lack the code to deal with EC keys at all.  The ideal 
> may be the enemy of the good in this instance.

Sure, I was answering based on the implied assumption that one wants to 
do EC crypto in the first place.

If one is concerned about interop and suspects that some peers just 
don't even support EC at all, then you'd probably want to include both 
an RSA and EC key in your metadata.  Then the encrypting party can 
choose which one they prefer. (Assuming *you* support EC - the Shib SP 
does not currently support ECDH and probably won't until we move to the 
Java-based shibd re-implementation.)

For signing you'd include both in metadata as well, for peers to 
validate with. But on the local config side, you'd have to decide 
whether to sign with RSA by default and add specific RP config to use 
EC, or vice versa, depending on how prevalent you think EC support is 
within your common peer entities.

Or, of course, not do EC at all, and stick with RSA only for now, which 
I imagine is what the vast majority of people are probably actually 
doing...at least until RSA falls. :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://shibboleth.net/pipermail/users/attachments/20220923/17a37825/attachment.htm>