MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAA0dE=VOCvxb_0-pEB8CO=JZ9FShVf=pQ43pCmAeYCf9LRTTcw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ACD43E1A-5BBC-4710-A3D4-72EA7E1BC79F@vigilsec.com>
 <CAA0dE=Wzdrr3kQiM98yehFHKeAafPgoRWQXdg1HoO0Ey0caLLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMMESsxYwV48N9pa0vuFP01DTJxx67zt4PFSr7OxPZHsj+83xQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsxYwV48N9pa0vuFP01DTJxx67zt4PFSr7OxPZHsj+83xQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alberto Leiva <ydahhrk@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 17:20:23 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA0dE=UkRAn7E4fUs4uw8euZQcR5ZQezVfAksaypWc7KU-HNuQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, IETF SIDR <sidr@ietf.org>, 
 SIDR Operations WG <sidrops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/nGeL82MQYWVS0aEghkPvfBWOoeY>
Subject: Re: [sidr] rsaEncryption vs sha256WithRSAEncryption in RPKI
 certificates
Precedence: list

I think those particular sections of RFCs 7935 and 8608 are talking
about different documents:

3.  Asymmetric Key Pair Formats
   The key formats used to compute signatures on CA certificates, BGPsec
   Router Certificates, and CRLs are as specified in Section 3 of
   [RFC7935].  This section addresses key formats found in the BGPsec
   Router Certificate requests and in BGPsec Router Certificates.
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8608#section-3)

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 4:36 PM Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrot=
e:
>
> [Adding sidrops.]
>
> Hi!
>
> I was just looking at this report=E2=80=A6
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3D7935
>
> The report says: "All existing RPKI readers and writers that I've seen, a=
s well as the global RPKI repository certificates themselves, currently use=
 rsaEncryption as the public key algorithm of subjectPublicKeyInfo. Therefo=
re, this change should also reflect existing practice.=E2=80=9D
>
> It turns out that rfc8208, and then rfc8608 Updated rfc7935=E2=80=A6the r=
esulting text is:
>
>    o  algorithm (an AlgorithmIdentifier type): The id-ecPublicKey OID
>       MUST be used in the algorithm field, as specified in Section 2.1.1
>       of [RFC5480].  The value for the associated parameters MUST be
>       secp256r1, as specified in Section 2.1.1.1 of [RFC5480].
>
>
> The erratum was filed in May of this year, and rfc8608 was published in J=
une.
>
> Does the report apply to rfc8608, or does the information there reflect e=
xisting practice?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
> On May 23, 2019 at 2:17:17 PM, Alberto Leiva (ydahhrk@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> I see. Is this erratum-worthy?
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:23 AM Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrot=
e:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 22, 2019, at 6:18 PM, Alberto Leiva <ydahhrk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello
> > >
> > > Another question.
> > >
> > > RFC 7935 states the following:
> > >
> > > 3.1. Public Key Format
> > >
> > > (...)
> > >
> > > algorithm (which is an AlgorithmIdentifier type):
> > > The object identifier for RSA PKCS #1 v1.5 with SHA-256 MUST be
> > > used in the algorithm field, as specified in Section 5 of
> > > [RFC4055]. The value for the associated parameters from that
> > > clause MUST also be used for the parameters field.
> > >
> > > I've never seen a certificate that declares sha256WithRSAEncryption (=
{
> > > pkcs-1 11 }) as its public key algorithm. Every certificate I've come
> > > across labels its algorithm as rsaEncryption ({ pkcs-1 1 }).
> > >
> > > (Certificates always define the signature algorithm as
> > > sha256WithRSAEncryption, but that's a different field.)
> > >
> > > Is everyone doing it wrong, or am I missing something?
> > >
> > > I'm aware that this is likely a triviality--rsaEncryption and
> > > sha256WithRSAEncryption probably mean the same in this context.
> > > There's also a thread in this list in which people seem to have
> > > experienced headaches over this topic. But the thread is talking abou=
t
> > > CMS signed objects (which I believe is different from certificates),
> > > and happened before 7935 was released, so it feels like the RFC shoul=
d
> > > mandate something consistent with reality by now.
> > >
> > > Thanks for any pointers.
> >
> > You are right.
> >
> > In the subjectPublicKeyInfo, the algorithm identifier should be rsaEncr=
yption, which is { 1, 2, 840, 113549, 1, 1, 1 }. This allow the public key =
to be used with PKCS#1 v1.5, RSASSA-PSS, and RSAES-OAEP.
> >
> > In the signature, the algorithm identifier should be sha256WithRSAEncry=
ption, which is { 1, 2, 840, 113549, 1, 1, 11 }. This identifies PKCS#1 v1.=
5 with SHA-256 as the hash algorithm.
> >
> > Russ
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr