On 2013-01-26 8:31 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Since there isn't a strong list moderator here, I gotta ask: is this (and
similar PKIX-is-broken threads) on-topic for this mailing list? Regardless of
how much I agree with the sentiment, it seems to have nothing to do with
cryptography. Maybe
… because it produces polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (aka dioxins).
[Peter Gutmann pgut...@cs.auckland.ac.nz (2013-01-26 04:32:48 UTC)]
John Levine jo...@iecc.com writes:
I'd like a list where people ensured that the subject lines of their messages
described what the message was about, so I
PSS is similar to OAEP, but is for signatures. If you have OAEP
implemented, then it wouldn't take you long to do PSS, which is
described in the PKCS-1v2.1 document.
Hacking OAEP into a signature scheme sounds a little dangerous.
However, I guess the idea would idea would just be to hash your
ianG i...@iang.org writes:
Could OAEP be considered reasonable for signatures?
You need to define appropriate. For example if you mean interoperable
then OAEP isn't even appropriate for encryption, let alone signatures. If
you're worried about timing channels then OAEP is also pretty
On Sat, January 26, 2013 5:53 pm, Peter Gutmann wrote:
ianG i...@iang.org writes:
Could OAEP be considered reasonable for signatures?
You need to define appropriate. For example if you mean interoperable
then OAEP isn't even appropriate for encryption, let alone signatures. If
you're
