[jose] RSA-OAEP vs RSA-OAEP-256

Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@gmail.com> Fri, 06 May 2022 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <sberyozkin@gmail.com>
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 CF169C157B5A for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 May 2022 09:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nkOVVlP1dBoX for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 May 2022 09:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2f.google.com (mail-io1-xd2f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F9BAC15948E for <jose@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 May 2022 09:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2f.google.com with SMTP id o190so8589569iof.10 for <jose@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 May 2022 09:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=AaoNkhlX7jLl8tInSLdctaqlcSJRAGPKBXXwvRASDSU=; b=ggqLJ2JUx/vVDxvXjauS0AcwVjvOm0jVkumWPJPB1Gak70pqGh0BAv0mUDi0FsQb/U J0ge5AQJRXalcuDINMtEBxWH5luMmotWnSF9PUOe9IUZYVRlamyAgD24zXCd5t+Wh4V1 Gt5H2a8pHImC82+kUVzRo9E6NCH1Sz1VK6YdYdvKD1tsNpgWx2VIlaPDlMgrh5IxvQul pIMSM5R6zU7PW8VwjiaXdjHu+0/CzzlFGYKqq9dYjw3leGZi5sod9sVoF3Xad5IqcZ3+ I1+kwXwbGYOuo8pRouQR1BuJjjPnS1tsLnHvCiWnzlohgi9CB+wutMrVcTtOz2MVW0he t9sw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=AaoNkhlX7jLl8tInSLdctaqlcSJRAGPKBXXwvRASDSU=; b=ZVcVbogR3Ga6A6p3YmzVJZGumUqpK666/nXpdUNeqzpdV26Qy2ExEn7EB48aI9vwG7 SuUcV3xsaj0tmMdiwMqitJ0Is5oIhiHHARUJevUcj4hEVYWHjLWeyYm/wmkNGmJcHRH9 fLwhUx1hx66xWNzqIh5ormkoWolrhsqOtbenn2laWUIWjZtLzrq5sprJ+RQR/5MRmPTc NeH6r/kscdsrcm0mgovXIf9pIt4UF23fQD/vhjG/KG1sJvruApZYbzmcMLnQTovCnDbu 5QMS0Tc6VbnMqlz0SRZKuQlZ2Df4OPknHkGzi/+CXPK5MxpsbYCanrWWDbQZmZuHCyjI RDzQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533NXDUVvxbQ+6ol5ACZQRLS+quiZjDkbkhOvgzzXqoJ1NGHhEGQ 8BsDQYdY5uOAhuY8dGznHsWKR1zX9LxLB357GsmvDgCCtzk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwv/rgWTq/u6ESvI7Jfsp2qZBjvQqQOpBJJFd/dCFpA0AzwWV2zGcXHPeFp9zppAHpu/srWgmQBlHU0plf5ycY=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:2112:b0:32b:b90c:b3a6 with SMTP id n18-20020a056638211200b0032bb90cb3a6mr1870875jaj.292.1651854408060; Fri, 06 May 2022 09:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 17:26:37 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOtGrGL6Lx=JxrKOsaAexqWEHT4CA3w8rahz9tigHGX2HmRpoA@mail.gmail.com>
To: jose@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000036931605de5a534a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/uNv9RXhyAh3j3isQ3wZvMXHWKjk>
Subject: [jose] RSA-OAEP vs RSA-OAEP-256
X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 06 May 2022 16:26:51 -0000

Hi Everyone

I'm contributing to a project where `RSA-OAEP`  [1] is currently a default
key encryption algorithm for encrypting JWT claims and we've had a request
to replace it with `RSA-OAEP-256` because `SHA-1` is used in `RSA-OAEP`.

I'd like to ask the experts, why does `RSA-OAEP` have a `Recommended+`
status, while `RSA-OAEP-256` - optional, at [1] ?

Also, while it is not a JOSE specific question, I'd appreciate some
comments on whether having an 'SHA-1' element in the `RSA-OAEP` encryption
process makes `RSA-OAEP` less secure or not. My basic understanding, based
on some Web search results, is that `RSA-OAEP` remains a secure algorithm.

Thanks, Sergey

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7518#section-4.3%5BRSA-OAEP%5D