Bonjour,

Le 24 févr. 2016 à 20:31, Peter Bowen <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> a 
écrit :

On Feb 24, 2016, at 11:07 AM, Ryan Sleevi 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

On Feb 24, 2016 10:56 AM, "Jeremy Rowley" 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> I’ve been playing around with Peter Bowen’s certlint (an excellent tool) and, 
> looking at the cert universe as a whole, there are some noticeable issues 
> with the BRs and RFC 5280 that I though merited a public CAB Forum 
> discussion.  Some of this is likely me not knowing the entire history of 
> 5280, so I appreciated any explanation. If there’s exceptions we would like 
> to make to RFC5280, we should probably also push a bis with IETF at the same 
> time.
>

> 3)      Years ago, we discussed that 2047 bit certs were equivalent to 2048 
> bit certs (although the discussion may have occurred solely on the Mozilla 
> mailing list).  We should codify this exception.

IMO, this is a giant hack that browsers did because CAs have trouble counting 
(see also: serial numbers), which itself is a statement that the underlying 
libraries played a very liberal definition.

I would prefer not.


I think there is a misunderstanding here. There has never been a requirement 
that the modulus contain a certain number of bits set to ‘1’.  What is required 
is that the modulus be a 2048-bit number.  The problem is that a 2048-bit 
number can have one or more of the high order bits being zero.  When 
calculating the modulus “size”, all an observer can do find the left-most bit 
set to ‘1’ and use that.  RSA moduli normally are the product of two prime 
numbers. OpenSSL and some other generating tools have a function that makes the 
top bit of each prime number to be 1 which ensures the result will have the top 
bit set to 1.  However a random prime could be smaller, resulting in a smaller 
results.

It’s like saying 998 is a 4 digits number whose highest-order digit is set to 0.

Cordialement,
Erwann Abalea

_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

Reply via email to