Simon Josefsson wrote:
Jostein Tveit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Anyone got a test key with a real and a forged signature to test
other implementations than OpenSSL?

There are actually two problems to consider...

First, there is the situation by Bleichenbacher at Crypto 06 and
explained in:

That uses the fact that implementation doesn't check for data beyond
the end of the ASN.1 structure.  OpenSSL was vulnerable to this,
GnuTLS was not, see my analysis for GnuTLS on this at:

Eric already posted test vectors that trigger this problem.

The second problem is that the "parameters" field can ALSO be used to
store data that may be used to manipulate the signature value into
being a cube.  To my knowledge, this was discovered by Yutaka Oiwa,
Kazukuni Kobara, Hajime Watanabe.  I didn't attend Crypto 06, but as
far as I understand from Hal's post, this aspect was not discussed.
Their analysis isn't public yet, as far as I know.

It seems to me that the evil here is ASN.1, or perhaps standards that use ASN.1 carelessly and badly.

It is difficult to write code that conforms to ASN.1, easy to get it wrong, and difficult to say what in fact constitutes conforming to ASN.1 or at least difficult to say what in fact constitutes conforming to standard written in ASN.1

ASN.1 does the same job as XML, but whereas XML is painfully verbose and redundant, ASN.1 is crypticly concise.

People do not seem to get XML wrong all that often, while they endlessly get ASN.1 wrong, and endlessly disagree over what constitutes being right.

Obviously we do need a standard for describing structured data, and we need a standard that leads to that structured data being expressed concisely and compactly, but seems to me that ASN.1 is causing a lot of grief.

What is wrong with it, what alternatives are there to it, or how can it be fixed?

The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to