Subject: [alpine-devel] APK Key Size - Request to move from 1024 to 2048

From: Orion <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 03:13:40 -0800

Hey all,

ryonaloli from the irc channel pointed out that the current APK key
size was of 1024. Is there a particular reason that it has stayed at
this size? Also is there any signatures for the ISO releases we
couldn't find any.

---
Unsubscribe:  [email-masked]
Help:         [email-masked]
---

---

From: Timo Teras <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 12:46:14 +0200

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 03:13:40 -0800

> this size? Also is there any signatures for the ISO releases we

The official Alpine package signing keys are RSA 2048 bits. I checked
all keys from edge all the way back to 2.4, and they are all RSA 2048.

Though, it would be probably good time to start doing EC-DSA signatures
soon. Should probably be a target for alpine-3.2.

/Timo

---

---

From: Orion <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 21:57:45 -0800

> all keys from edge all the way back to 2.4, and they are all RSA 2048.

My appologies. I will do a better check next time. Thank you for
checking that far back. 

> Though, it would be probably good time to start doing EC-DSA
> signatures soon. Should probably be a target for alpine-3.2.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Is there any given best practices for
EC-DSA and signing?

Also I still can't find the signatures for the ISO releases or a
signature of the hashes.

---

---

From: Timo Teras <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:19:02 +0200

On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 21:57:45 -0800

> Sounds like a good idea to me. Is there any given best practices for

There are several. I would probably just go ahead using the openssl the
same way as for RSA. That is to generate ASN1 encoded raw signatures.

For other parameters, I'm considering to use the NIST standard curves .
Ed25519/Curve25519 would be interesting, but seems openssl (at
least any release version) does not support it yet.

The recommended combinations for interoperability seem to be (in PGP,
SSL/TLS, CMS, IKEv2 and other standards):

EC NIST P-256 (equals ~3072  RSA), SHA2-256, AES-128
EC NIST P-384 (equals ~7680  RSA), SHA2-348, AES-192
EC NIST P-521 (equals ~15360 RSA), SHA2-512, AES-256

In our case it's signatures, so just picking a curve + digest would do.
Of these P256 is usually MUST, P521 is SHOULD, and P384 is MAY. So I'm
thinking on going with P256 + SHA2-256 as next step.

> Also I still can't find the signatures for the ISO releases or a

Unfortunately no. This is something we should do (or more like, should
have been doing for a long time). I think doing detached PGP-signatures
like others would be the way to go.

ncopa, any thoughts?

/Timo

---

---

From: Natanael Copa <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 09:17:18 +0100

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:19:02 +0200

> like others would be the way to go.

I agree with you. We should have done it long time ago. Not that it is
an excuse but gnupg-2.0 had portability issues with musl (or more
precice, PTH had). Now that gnupg-2.1 is out, there are not even bad
excuses for not doing it.

I created issue #3541 as a reminder.
http://bugs.alpinelinux.org/issues/3541

Thanks!

-nc

---