Re: TPM2_Sign vs TPM2_RSA_Decrypt

On 5/16/24 6:55 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu May 16, 2024 at 4:44 PM EEST, James Prestwood wrote:
>> To be honest I started with encrypt/decrypt and included the signing
>> operation because it was basically "free" by using tpm2_rsa_decrypt(). I
>> was not aware of this distinction/difference between that and doing
>> signing on the TPM itself. I don't think I ever looked into the signing
>> command on the TPM itself.
> My personal take: I'd start RSA with the working code and just
> clean up the parts for the first round. It is tested code and
> does the job, right? :-)
It was tested then yes, obviously need to verify that after 4 years :)
>
> Then we will weight the odds and cons in the review. That said,
> if you want to use TPM_Sign and TPM2_EncryptDecrypt(2) that is
> fine too, but not demand.
>
> As for ECDSA, it can be part of the patch set, or we can start
> just with the RSA part.
> Andreas, is it OK if the patch set is CC'd to you so you can
> give your feedback/remarks on it?
>
> BR, Jarkko