On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Niels Möller <[email protected]> wrote:
>> What about the rsa_compute_root? This is the only function I can use >> from nettle for RSA signatures > I wasn't aware of that. That's an argument for an rsa_compute_root_tr > (or alternatively, public rsa_blind and rsa_unblind helpers). > Can you explain briefly what special signatures are used by tls? (It was > more then 10 years since I wrote an implementation, then it was ssl > version 3). Out of memory TLS 1.0 uses a concatenation of md5 and sha1. I don't think however that, this mode should be added in nettle. It would complicate the API for no real reason (if a generic pkcs1, 1.5 signing function is available). >> If there was an rsa_pkcs1_sign() and rsa_pkcs1_verify() with similar >> interface to encrypt/decrypt, I could use those instead. > Can you propose such an interface? Currently, rsa_md5_sign calls > pkcs1_rsa_md5_encode followed by rsa_compute_root. If it's easy for you > to use rsa_compute_root in the same way, then I guess there's no need to > introduce new low-level primitives, but maybe it could be rearranged in > some better way? I do the pkcs1 1.5 encoding in gnutls, and you also do it in the high level functions in nettle, that I cannot use. It would be nice if we can save some code and reduce error risk by having a common pkcs1 1.5 signing function. I'll try to propose one the next few days. > Or, since tls is an important application, it may make sense to directly > add tls-style signatures to Nettle. I don't think it is a good idea. What might be needed at some point later is pkcs 1 2.0 signatures. I've come across some passports signed by certificates using rsa-pss :( regards, Nikos _______________________________________________ nettle-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
