[pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6960 (6165)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 11 May 2020 12:16 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: pkix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pkix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A93C3A087B for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2020 05:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4J0QJR7U8lSg for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2020 05:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F77B3A0A3B for <pkix@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2020 05:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 17072F4071E; Mon, 11 May 2020 05:15:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: sts@aaa-sec.com, mmyers@fastq.com, none@rfc-editor.org, ambarish@gmail.com, slava.galperin@gmail.com, cadams@eecs.uottawa.ca, rdd@cert.org, kaduk@mit.edu, kent@bbn.com, stefan@aaa-sec.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: yury@strozhevsky.com, pkix@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20200511121547.17072F4071E@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 05:15:47 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/6a940uHvYIoPTPtRTXgOaiPHsug>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 14 May 2020 10:09:32 -0700
Subject: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6960 (6165)
X-BeenThere: pkix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: PKIX Working Group <pkix.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pkix>, <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pkix/>
List-Post: <mailto:pkix@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix>, <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 12:16:03 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6960, "X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6165 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Yury Strozhevsky <yury@strozhevsky.com> Section: 1 Original Text ------------- --- Corrected Text -------------- o Appendix B.1 provides correct KeyHash type processing description. Now SHA-1 hash must be calculated for responder's public key ASN.1 value without tag, length and unused bits. Notes ----- The RFC6960 changes OCSP protocol in part of KeyHash type calculation. In RFC2560 there is the description: KeyHash ::= OCTET STRING -- SHA-1 hash of responder's public key (excluding the tag and length fields) But in Appendix B.1, which is the major OCSP descriptive module, stated: KeyHash ::= OCTET STRING -- SHA-1 hash of responder's public key -- (i.e., the SHA-1 hash of the value of the -- BIT STRING subjectPublicKey [excluding -- the tag, length, and number of unused -- bits] in the responder's certificate) The difference is in what would be under SHA-1 hash. In RFC2560 KeyHash would be calculated for entire BIT STRING value, with "unused bits" byte (first byte in BIT STRING value), but Appendix B.1 in RFC6960 states that SHA-1 hash must be calculated for BIT STRING value without "unused bits". Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC6960 (draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis-20) -------------------------------------- Title : X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP Publication Date : June 2013 Author(s) : S. Santesson, M. Myers, R. Ankney, A. Malpani, S. Galperin, C. Adams Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509) Area : Security Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- Re: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6960 (6… Stefan Santesson
- [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6960 (6165) RFC Errata System
- Re: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6960 (6… yury
- Re: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6960 (6… Erwann Abalea
- Re: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6960 (6… Erwann Abalea
- Re: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6960 (6… Russ Housley
- Re: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6960 (6… Stefan Santesson
- Re: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6960 (6… Russ Housley
- Re: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6960 (6… yury
- Re: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6960 (6… yury