I am pretty sure you should not make that change to the JCA algorithm
string. I'll have to search around to remember why, some oddity of Java I
think, but I'm away from my laptop right now and that one is too much to
research on a phone.
On Mar 26, 2015 6:41 PM, "Mike Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:

>  I am working on the formatting of the algorithm cross-reference tables
> in JWA Appendix A
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-40#appendix-A
> with the RFC Editor to make them more readable.  When looking at the table
> content (in a more readable rendition I’ll share with you soon), I noticed
> that this string appears for the JCA value of three algorithms:
>
>                AES/CBC/PKCS5Padding
>
> which I believe should be
>
>                AES/CBC/PKCS7Padding
>
>
>
> This would be consistent with the changes made in -28 for the reasons
> described in this thread.  JAVA IMPLEMENTERS – If you are currently using
> AES/CBC/PKCS5Padding can you please verify that your implementation still
> works after changing this string to AES/CBC/PKCS7Padding and that the
> results are still correct and reply to us letting us know what happened?
> Matt, if your code for the cookbook is in Java, it would be especially
> good if you made this code change and verified that nothing changes in the
> output.
>
>
>
> Also, this clearly inconsistent sentence currently occurs in
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-40#section-5.2.1
> :
>
>       CBC-PKCS5-ENC(X, P) denotes the AES CBC encryption of P using PKCS
>
>       #7 padding using the cipher with the key X.
>
>
>
> I believe that the identifier CBC-PKCS5-ENC should be changed to
> CBC-PKCS7-ENC.
>
>
>
> Unless people disagree, I will plan to apply these corrections during
> AUTH48.
>
>
>
>                                                             Thanks all,
>
>                                                             -- Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* jose [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Mike Jones
> *Sent:* Friday, June 20, 2014 7:03 PM
> *To:* Shaun Cooley (shcooley)
> *Cc:* [email protected]; Matt Miller (mamille2)
> *Subject:* Re: [jose] draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-27: section-5.2
> (PKCS #5)
>
>
>
> This change has been incorporated in the -28 drafts.
>
>
>
>                                                             Thanks again,
> Shaun,
>
>                                                             -- Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* jose [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On
> Behalf Of *Mike Jones
> *Sent:* Friday, June 13, 2014 2:27 PM
> *To:* Shaun Cooley (shcooley)
> *Cc:* [email protected]; Matt Miller (mamille2)
> *Subject:* Re: [jose] draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-27: section-5.2
> (PKCS #5)
>
>
>
> (Adding the JOSE working group)
>
>
>
> I believe you’re right.  I’ll plan to make this change in the next version
> of the spec.
>
>
>
> Thanks for the careful read!
>
>
>
>                                                             -- Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* Shaun Cooley (shcooley) [mailto:[email protected]
> <[email protected]>]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 13, 2014 10:34 AM
> *To:* Mike Jones
> *Cc:* Matt Miller (mamille2)
> *Subject:* draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-27: section-5.2 (PKCS #5)
>
>
>
> Michael –
>
>  I am working on implementing a browser compatible JS implementation of
> JOSE, based on the work Matt Miller did for Node.JS.  While going through
> the spec, I noticed that PKCS #5 is called out for the AES-CBC ciphers.
> Shouldn’t this be PKCS #7?
>
>
>
> PKCS #5 – RFC2898 section 6.2 specifies:
>
> The padding string PS shall consist of 8 - (||M|| mod 8) octets all having
> value 8 - (||M|| mod 8).
>
>
>
> PKCS #7 – RFC2315 section 10.3 note 2 specifies:
>
> For such algorithms, the method shall be to pad the input at the trailing
> end with k - (l mod k) octets all having value k - (l mod k), where l is
> the length of the input.
>
>
>
> PKCS #7 allows for padding in block sizes of 2-255 bytes, whereas PKCS #5
> is intended for block sizes of 8.  This means that PKCS #7 is a superset of
> #5, and given that AES is a block size of 16, it seems the spec should
> require PKCS #7.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> *Shaun Cooley*
> DISTINGUISHED ENGINEER.ENGINEERING
> Collaboration Technology Group
> [email protected]
> Phone: *+1 408 902 3344 <%2B1%20408%20902%203344>*
> Mobile: *+1 310 293 2087 <%2B1%20310%20293%202087>*
>
> [image: http://www.cisco.com/web/europe/images/email/signature/logo05.jpg]
> Cisco.com <http://www.cisco.com/>
>
>
>
> This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole
> use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or
> authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by
> reply email and delete all copies of this message.
>
> For corporate legal information go to:
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>
>
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose

Reply via email to