- From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:28:50 -0700
- To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren@telia.com>
- Cc: "public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org" <public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren@telia.com> wrote: > It seems from the list of algorithms that the signature method used by 99.99% of all existing > applications has been deprecated since it is not listed. > > It doesn't get less puzzling when W3C's latest XML Signature draft > http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core2 <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core2/> > list PKCS 1.5 signatures as REQUIRED and doesn't even mention the RSA-PSS algorithm as OPTIONAL! > > No, I'm not a cryptographer but AFAIK nobody has cracked PKCS 1.5 signatures > in the way that has happened with PKCS 1.5 encryption and recently with AES-CBC. > > Feel free RECOMMEND whatever the "crypto-skeptical-community" thinks is OK, > but ignoring the de-facto standard is probably not a great idea. > > Anders > Anders, The draft is a live, in-progress draft being worked about the the working group members who have agreed to the W3C Participation Guidelines, as described on http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/54174/instructions . Priority to both use cases and feedback is thus naturally granted to the participating members, whose consensus forms the basis for the outputs of this WG. This draft has not advanced to First Public Working Draft, nor is it reflective of the full consensus of the WG and the full direction that will be taken. Thus, the absence of PKCS#1 v1.5/2.0/2.1 is by no means a reflection of a decision not to support it, nor is the list of any algorithms currently present a firm commitment to support them. I would encourage you to wait before reviewing or commenting on the document until FPWD, so then you can see what the consensus of the group reflects. If you have issues with the draft at that point, I encourage you to raise them, and they will be responded to. However, I also encourage you to carefully review the charter, which has been finalized, to see if the issues you will be raising - such as those related to smart cards - have already been addressed as in-scope or out-of-scope efforts. When the WG is ready to publish the FPWD, I'm sure you'll be among the first to comment, and I and my fellow editors will make every reasonable attempt to respond to your feedback then. Regards
Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 17:29:18 UTC