RE: More examples-05 issues
"Magnus Svensson" <[email protected]> Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:48:13 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.smime-examples |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
John, After investigating your new 6.2 example I found that it has an OriginatorInfo structure, and thus contradicting the draft description of the example. The draft description is included below for reference: ---- 6.2 Basic encrypted content, TripleDES and RSA Same as 6.1, except with RSA for key management. An EnvelopedData from Alice to Bob of ExContent using TripleDES for encrypting and RSA for key management. Does not have a OriginatorInfo, and has unprotected attributes." ---- Furthermore the OriginatorInfo contains DSS certificates & CRLs for Alice and Carl. This is obvously of not much use since the example uses RSA for key management. In my opinion the 6.1 and 6.2 examples should not contain any optional information fields since they are basic examples. They should just stick to the basic requirements. If the unprotected attributes are also removed from the example it would actually also be backwards compatible to the PKCS#7 spec. Do you agree with me John? This is just my personal opinion, but the inconsistency with the OriginatorInfo field needs to be solved anyway. Regards, Magnus -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Pawling, John Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 4:53 PM To: 'Alexei Shamov'; [email protected] Cc: Colestock, Robert Subject: RE: More examples-05 issues Alexei, Thank you very much for your feedback. Getronics Government Solutions generated the section 6.2, 6.9 and 6.10 sample messages included in the "Examples of S/MIME Messages" I-D (Examples-05). Please see my responses in-line. The rest of your comments should be addressed by Paul Hoffman. =========================================== John Pawling, [email protected] Getronics Government Solutions, LLC =========================================== -----Original Message----- From: Alexei Shamov [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 8:41 AM To: [email protected] Subject: More examples-05 issues Hi All, Testing examples-05 document, I have found some more issues as follows: 1. I was unable to decrypt some Diffie-Hellman enveloped messages (6.2, 6.9, 6.10) with User Keying Material specified in KeyAgreeRecipientInfo. [JSP: Section 6.2 contains a sample EnvelopedData using TripleDES for encrypting and RSA for key management, so I do not understand your above comment in relation to the section 6.2 sample. There was a bug reported in the section 6.2 SFL-generated sample message (incorrect KeyTransRecipientInfo version value). I have attached the message reporting the bug and the corrected section 6.2 sample message (6.2.bin).] Firstly, ukm is 1024 bits long (128 bytes) octet string. Should not it be 512 bits (64 bytes) as specified in RFC 2631 / 2.1.2? (Ahmed Bhamjee has already addressed this issue before). [JSP: In the sample messages for sections 6.9 and 6.10, you are correct that the size of partyAInfo contained in the OtherInfo sequence must be 512 bits in size. When Ahmed Bhamjee reported this error in the SFL (see attached message), we corrected the bug in the SFL, but we forgot to re-generate the sample messages for sections 6.9 and 6.10 including the incorrect partyAInfo values. We will generate corrected messages and provide them to the list as soon as possible.] Secondly, in examples 6.2, 6.9 when RC2 CEK was wrapped with 3DES KEK, it seems that Triple-DES key wrap algorithm (RFC2630/12.6.2) was used (only 128-bit plain CEK appears after decryption, not LENGTH || CEK || PAD). Should not RC2 key wrap algorithm (RFC2630/12.6.4) be used? [JSP: Section 6.2 contains a sample EnvelopedData using TripleDES for encrypting and RSA for key management, so I do not understand your above comment in relation to the section 6.2 sample. In the section 6.9 sample message, a 3DES KEK is used, so the Triple-DES key wrap algorithm is used.] Example 6.10 failed at KeyCheck step of RC2 key unwrap. Perhaps this is a problem of my implementation (some debug information is attached to the end of this message). [JSP: We will reply to this comment in a later message.] 4. In 6.2 and some other messages GeneralizedTime does not have century specified, as per RFC 2459/4.1.2.5.2. Is it acceptable? [JSP: You are correct that GeneralizedTime must always specify the century. When we re-generate the sample message for section 6.9, we will ensure that the GeneralizedTime value is corrected. Also, we will re-generate the sample messages for section 6.11 to correct the GeneralizedTime value. We have already re-generated the sample message for section 11.5 to correct the GeneralizedTime value (attached). If you see any other incorrect GeneralizedTimes, please let us know. Please note that the X.509 certificates included in many of the sample messages (such as Section 6.2) include UTCTimes which (correctly) do not specify the century. ] 01E1 A2 63: [2] { 01E3 02 1: INTEGER 4 01E6 30 22: SEQUENCE { 01E8 04 11: OCTET STRING 'MailListTripleDES' 01FB 18 D: GeneralizedTime '951230235959Z' Regards, Alexei P.S. Debug information for example 6.10 OtherInfo= 0000 30 A3: SEQUENCE { 0003 30 13: SEQUENCE { 0005 06 B: OBJECT IDENTIFIER : id-alg-CMSRC2wrap (1 2 840 113549 1 9 16 3 7) 0012 04 4: OCTET STRING : 00 00 00 01 : } 0018 A0 83: [0] { 001B 04 80: OCTET STRING : 17 2F 3B 6C DE 37 69 19 8A 7A 03 F2 DE A3 04 96 : 7E 0A 8E 30 3F 76 C8 58 3A 95 B0 46 98 23 50 82 : DC 46 52 6E 7C 5E 60 1B 3E B5 DC 2D 2D B7 1A EC : 13 70 8A 7B 83 73 4D 17 BE 93 4B 58 BC 66 D1 8B : 42 95 A7 E2 F1 9A 5B 08 61 16 88 E4 C2 AC DD 1A : 79 0D 37 FF A8 E6 7A AC 91 79 2F 2A 33 E1 E9 52 : 4F 18 AE 18 46 03 25 84 D1 13 E1 87 1B 48 80 74 : F3 33 23 68 1E CD 81 40 4A E9 83 02 2D 23 0B A2 : } 009E A2 6: [2] { 00A0 04 4: OCTET STRING : 00 00 00 80 : } : } ZZ = c2 5e 2c 49 65 6b 8e 28 36 45 9a 5c 54 f4 ce 64 0d 97 cc 0e ce 40 f3 4e ff 6c 9f 9a c8 76 c7 38 02 48 ec 39 c5 6b e1 6d 0a 73 ac cb cc 25 4b 6b b6 32 54 89 40 95 f7 64 06 99 d3 61 af 86 06 51 10 97 be 2a 2d 30 76 92 e6 26 8d 38 4b a6 7c cb 3c 68 4b f1 b4 44 6d 60 d3 b1 d7 13 4e 91 a1 96 48 c4 74 79 7e 1b 69 c5 43 52 11 cc b9 a0 93 4b e3 21 30 de 7a 98 85 c2 40 1c f4 b5 1f 4d 41 f2 KEK=95 cf 08 a6 f9 5c 97 a9 18 ae 3b ee 26 67 71 6a