Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <[email protected]> writes:
> /* RSA signatures, using PKCS#1 1.5
> * Input should be a BER encoded DigestInfo
> */
> int
> rsa_digest_info_sign(const struct rsa_private_key *key,
> unsigned length, const uint8_t *digest_info,
> mpz_t signature);
>
> int
> rsa_digest_info_verify(const struct rsa_public_key *key,
> unsigned length, const uint8_t *digest_info,
> const mpz_t signature);
That seems reasonable (if and how the implementation of nettle's other
rsa sign/verify functions could be reorganized to make use of that, I'm
not sure).
Minor points: It should really be DER encoded, right? And I guess you'd
also want a _sign_tr variant. As for naming, maybe I'd want to have
"pkcs1" int he name, not sure.
A question for all of you: Nettle currently has two flavors of sign
functions for each algorithm. E.g.,
int
rsa_sha1_sign(const struct rsa_private_key *key,
struct sha1_ctx *hash,
mpz_t signature);
int
rsa_sha1_sign_digest(const struct rsa_private_key *key,
const uint8_t *digest,
mpz_t s);
The former could be implemented in terms of the latter (currently it's
not, to avoid an unnecessary copy, which may be a pointless
optimization in this context).
The point of the first function is convenience, where you can create a
signature simply by
sha1_init
sha1_update
rsa_sha1_sign
without bothering with allocating and writing the actual digest.
Do you think this design makes sense?
Regards,
/Niels
--
Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26.
Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance.
_______________________________________________
nettle-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
