Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Enhancement: ability to use AES192/256 encryption w/appropriate version-byte flag #16

Open
tknarr opened this issue Jun 1, 2016 · 6 comments

Comments

@tknarr
Copy link

tknarr commented Jun 1, 2016

Is it possible to enhance the Fernet spec to allow the optional use of AES192/256 encryption with an appropriate flag in the version byte to indicate the encryption used? I've run into projects where Fernet would be a good fit but 256-bit encryption is required. Nothing in the current spec would interfere with allowing larger key lengths, and in the implementations I've tried it's simply a matter of setting the encryption to use the longer key and the rest of the implementation is oblivious to the change.

@tknarr
Copy link
Author

tknarr commented Jun 1, 2016

From looking at it I can make the changes to the Ruby implementation, and I think I can do the other implementations too. In Python I handled the version byte by carving out bits 5-6 to indicate the encryption level, 00 = 128-bit, 01 = 192-bit, 10 = 256-bit, giving version bytes of 0x80, 0xA0 and 0xC0 respectively. That leaves bits 0-5 for version numbering.

@bedros
Copy link

bedros commented Jun 23, 2016

I need 256 bit key as well, the 128 bit is not strong enough these days.

@tknarr
Copy link
Author

tknarr commented Jun 23, 2016

I have pull requests open for the spec and the Ruby implementation, working on one for the Go implementation, and the needed changes to the Python implementation in the cryptography package.

@theonewolf
Copy link

The ability to use AES 256 would help match other projects such as Vault.

Is there any expectation for maintainers to accept this pull request?

👍

@jborrey
Copy link

jborrey commented Feb 14, 2017

+1

1 similar comment
@erikreppel
Copy link

+1

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants