- From: Joseph Ashwood <ashwood@msn.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 15:10:22 -0700
- To: <xml-encryption@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: Aleksey Sanin > Thanks for your suggestion but the problem arrives when you are decrypting > the message and not when you are encrypting it (the libraries do padding > check before returning the result). Then you should be using a different encryption engine. Since the three libraries you listed obviously don't suit the needs of the situation, they are not and should not be considered useful. This will make implementation more difficult, but difficulty is no reason to sacrifice a multitude of benefits. > As I said before from my point of vew the current proposed padding makes > XML Enc non-interop with RFC1423 and from my expirience it makes > harder to follow XML Enc standard for implementors. RFCs are called "Request for Comment" for a reason, they are not absolute standards. That RFC 1423 doesn't fit any purpose here, and only serves to place limits of the security, serves as clear evidence that it would not be an optimal choice. The padding verification is useless in a proper design, I shoed 1 simple attack against a cipher in CBC mode, what I didn't show is that it is accepted policy to use a MAC algorithm to certify the integrity of a message, making the padding completely useless as a verifier of integrity. Joe
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2002 18:14:35 UTC