Consider switching from AES CTR to AES XTS #3230

Open
opened 2019-07-25 13:26:42 +00:00 by exarkun · 2 comments
exarkun commented 2019-07-25 13:26:42 +00:00
Owner

After discussion with #cryptography-dev about random access AES CTR support in the cryptography library, it sounds like a better move would be for Tahoe-LAFS to switch this primitive to AES XTS instead. AES XTS is designed with random access in mind.

Obviously there are more factors to consider than just ease of random access. The outcome of this ticket should be an enumeration and consideration of all such factors along with a decision about whether they indicate sticking with AES CTR or switching to AES XTS.

After discussion with #cryptography-dev about random access AES CTR support in the `cryptography` library, it sounds like a better move would be for Tahoe-LAFS to switch this primitive to AES XTS instead. AES XTS is designed with random access in mind. Obviously there are more factors to consider than *just* ease of random access. The outcome of this ticket should be an enumeration and consideration of all such factors along with a decision about whether they indicate sticking with AES CTR or switching to AES XTS.
tahoe-lafs added the
code
normal
defect
n/a
labels 2019-07-25 13:26:42 +00:00
tahoe-lafs added this to the undecided milestone 2019-07-25 13:26:42 +00:00
exarkun commented 2019-07-25 13:34:00 +00:00
Author
Owner

Somewhere, likely, there should also be a task to survey more recent cryptographic tools that might serve here. AES XTS (or, I guess, "XTS-AES") was standardized 12 years ago. I have done no investigation to determine how well or poorly it has aged.

Somewhere, likely, there should also be a task to survey more recent cryptographic tools that might serve here. AES XTS (or, I guess, "XTS-AES") was standardized 12 years ago. I have done no investigation to determine how well or poorly it has aged.
exarkun commented 2019-07-25 13:59:36 +00:00
Author
Owner

(/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/7771) was the immediate motivation for this ticket, by the way.

(/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/7771) was the immediate motivation for this ticket, by the way.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25#3230
No description provided.