IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [saag] ASN.1 vs. DER Encoding

Volker Birk <vb@pep-project.org> Tue, 26 March 2019 17:25 UTC

Return-Path: <vb@pep-project.org>
X-Original-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 111971206DD for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 Oyul2_V_XoDm for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dragon.pibit.ch (dragon.pibit.ch [94.231.81.244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8959C1206C6 for <saag@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dragon.pibit.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0DFA171C06B for <saag@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:25:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from dragon.pibit.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dragon.pibit.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3SukJndE_ZxU for <saag@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:25:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (unknown [213.55.184.222]) by dragon.pibit.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CD865171C057 for <saag@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:25:50 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:25:50 +0100
From: Volker Birk <vb@pep-project.org>
To: saag@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20190326172550.rvjcqmzogehneldl@pep-project.org>
Mail-Followup-To: saag@ietf.org
References: <21dec229-5b5c-8d52-6817-edac2e39ceec@openca.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wibadnrvskiynauj"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <21dec229-5b5c-8d52-6817-edac2e39ceec@openca.org>
X-PGP-Key: http://fdik.org/vb.key
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/AYNqpU774zWmu5Nyyu8vmOjU8AE>
Subject: Re: [saag] ASN.1 vs. DER Encoding
X-BeenThere: saag@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group <saag.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/saag/>
List-Post: <mailto:saag@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 17:26:05 -0000

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 05:24:38PM +0100, Dr. Pala wrote:
> Since I have seen this happening multiple times, I am starting to wonder if
> I am the one who is wrong. In particular, my question is: do people in the
> security area support the statement that ASN.1 is equivalent to DER encoding
> ?

For sure not. And you're not mistaken AFAICS.

> Therefore, my recommendation is to keep this distinction in mind when
> talking about encoding and parsing of, for example, certificates. 

I'm supporting this.

Yours,
VB.
-- 
Volker Birk, p≡p project
mailto:vb@pep-project.org
https://pep.software

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email