- From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:45:19 -0800
- To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
- Cc: "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2014 21:45:47 UTC
Does anyone object to the resolution proposed by Jim ? ...Mark On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: > I filed https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24760 > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>wrote: > >> Let's start with a discussion of what reference(s) we should be using for >> the padding algorithm. The problem with both of the current one is that >> they are setup for 64-bit encryption block algorithms and not the current >> 128-bit block size. The best reference that I can give you for now would >> be RFC 5652 (Cryptographic Message Syntax) which is the official successor >> to PKCS #7 in any event. The section that describes the padding algorithm >> is section 6.3 >> >> >> >> The unpadding algorithm in step 5 of decrypt needs to state "If p is zero >> or greater than 16" >> >> >> >> >> >> Jim >> >> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2014 21:45:47 UTC