IETF Logo Mail Archive

[jose] RSASSA-PSS signature

"Peck, Michael A" <mpeck@mitre.org> Tue, 12 March 2013 18:53 UTC

Return-Path: <mpeck@mitre.org>
X-Original-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF69A11E8108 for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.282
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.282 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.317, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KAI-LiWKWoaS for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (smtpksrv1.mitre.org [198.49.146.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFFEE11E8152 for <jose@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 297561F0AC8 for <jose@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:52:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from IMCCAS03.MITRE.ORG (imccas03.mitre.org [129.83.29.80]) by smtpksrv1.mitre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 013CE1F0AF3 for <jose@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:52:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from IMCMBX04.MITRE.ORG ([169.254.4.76]) by IMCCAS03.MITRE.ORG ([129.83.29.80]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:52:39 -0400
From: "Peck, Michael A" <mpeck@mitre.org>
To: "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RSASSA-PSS signature
Thread-Index: Ac4fUsSatNxE3pBSSnqP5xo0kQPdBQ==
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 18:52:39 +0000
Message-ID: <8B4C063947CD794BB6FF90C78BAE9B321EFC0A36@IMCMBX04.MITRE.ORG>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [129.83.31.51]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8B4C063947CD794BB6FF90C78BAE9B321EFC0A36IMCMBX04MITREOR_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [jose] RSASSA-PSS signature
X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Javascript Object Signing and Encryption <jose.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose>
List-Post: <mailto:jose@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 18:53:01 -0000

draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-08 includes RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 signatures but not RSASSA-PSS.

The Security Considerations states:
   While Section 8 of RFC 3447 [RFC3447] explicitly calls for people not
   to adopt RSASSA-PKCS1 for new applications and instead requests that
   people transition to RSASSA-PSS, this specification does include
   RSASSA-PKCS1, for interoperability reasons, because it commonly
   implemented.

Shouldn't RSASSA-PSS at least be included as an option?
I'm also not sure if I fully understand the interoperability concerns.  JWS is a new specification, so it makes sense to me to use whatever algorithms are currently considered best practice, without need to worry about backwards compatibility?

Mike

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email