Can you close this one as "wontfix" then Jim? -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Schaad Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 3:53 PM To: 'Matt Miller (mamille2)'; 'jose issue tracker' Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [jose] #182: PBSE2 should be PBKDF2
> -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Miller (mamille2) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 10:29 AM > To: jose issue tracker > Cc: <[email protected]>; > <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [jose] #182: PBSE2 should be PBKDF2 > > On Aug 19, 2013, at 4:10 PM, jose issue tracker > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > #182: PBSE2 should be PBKDF2 > > > > In going back and scanning RFC 2898, PBES2 combines a password-based > key > > derivation function, which shall be PBKDF2 (Section 5.2) for this version > > of PKCS #5, with an underlying encryption scheme. > > > > However we are just using it as a KDF function rather than the > > combined function. > > > > That is not correct. The (encrypt) algorithm expects a Content > Encryption Key as an input, and the output is the wrapped Content > Encryption Key, not the derived key. As long as we never implement PBES2-HS256+Direct then I can agree with this. Jim > > > - m&m > > Matt Miller < [email protected] > > Cisco Systems, Inc. _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
