W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: can have the same public key two diferent <RSAKeyValue> representations ???

From: Karl Scheibelhofer <karl.scheibelhofer@iaik.tugraz.at>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:20:16 +0200
Message-ID: <005501c452b1$973098d0$64981b81@iaik.at>
To: "Martin Labarthe Dubois" <dubois@consist.com.ar>, <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>

according to http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/#sec-CryptoBinary, the first
representation of the modulus (ALT...ZH) is incorrect because it contains a
leading zero octet.

  Karl

--

Karl Scheibelhofer, IAIK - Graz University of Technology
Inffeldgasse 16a, 8010 Graz, Austria
Fax: +43 316 873 5520
http://jce.iaik.tugraz.at/


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Martin Labarthe Dubois" <dubois@consist.com.ar>
To: <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 9:39 PM
Subject: can have the same public key two diferent <RSAKeyValue>
representations ???



I have signed an XML with two different algorithms,
they produced the same signature:

<SignatureValue>cWmKHs9Y8kDgb18KEqzwonsAhXhcbCPJlgLKw1j4LA8FE+ZNJEFWDkD8EE+x
+IF+HqrhtHaP9VNH
3DZXj7d2TaD2FZg2P7H48VHZBRTXguHJ4VAoJGWVCEOWJIgAYPYY9AwCzAP7Fq1CK0tVjZuOx/kj
1pXSR2N7nhcINoy0nwI=</SignatureValue>

and the same X509Certificate:

<X509Data>

<X509Certificate>MIIFYjCCBEqgAwIBAgIRAOQcxH0LRFgNXlhsKI68ao8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQE
FBQAwgdIxCzAJBgNV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</X509Certificate>
  </X509Data>

but diferent Modulus+Exponent pair.

- <RSAKeyValue>

<Modulus>ALTng/nEXt4jp8tatc1EHqteLwdovwRyueRuuB0Q7PisWn5uzdaCOKhnIkH9BgtlwJJ
Ewd+sYEoU
7wIj3NcLlaIg/rypTQz+AlNKmiUIxAYHbCJ1LH3cEBct9HUY4YjleV1cK9Ip6j1INQ6PjzViNMng
52RweeSuPi/hm98YafZH</Modulus>
  <Exponent>AQAB</Exponent>
  </RSAKeyValue>
  </KeyValue>

and

- <RSAKeyValue>

<Modulus>tOeD+cRe3iOny1q1zUQeq14vB2i/BHK55G64HRDs+Kxafm7N1oI4qGciQf0GC2XAkkT
B36xgShTv
AiPc1wuVoiD+vKlNDP4CU0qaJQjEBgdsInUsfdwQFy30dRjhiOV5XVwr0inqPUg1Do+PNWI0yeDn
ZHB55K4+L+Gb3xhp9kc=</Modulus>
  <Exponent>AQAB</Exponent>
  </RSAKeyValue>


i dindīt know that a Public Key could have two different Modulus+Exponent
pairs representation,
is this logical???

I verified both signatures with two diferent toolkits and both are valid, (i
deleted de <X509Data> to force validation by RSAKeyValue instead of
X509Certificate.
The references in <SignedInfo> are correct too.


Thanks & Regards,
Martin


I deleted the X509Certificate to force validation by
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2004 08:52:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:21:39 UTC