Re: [lamps] OID für KEM?

[Kurt Roeckx <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 11:30:24PM -0700, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 07:53:56PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> > 
> > Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >     >> I also agree that it can be annoying, but I don't think that it's that huge a deal.
> >     >> It would be nice if this didn't happen, but it seems to me that integers are
> >     >> plentiful, and I think that we gain as a community from understanding how
> >     >> things work or didn't work.
> >     >>
> >     >> As I understand Ben's comment, the "pre-standization Keccak" (and the
> >     >> unmodified Rijndael) are in fact different algorithms.
> > 
> >     > IIRC (not guaranteed), pre-standardization Keccak and SHA-3 differ in a few
> >     > constants, and the mapping between byte string and bit string, and are
> >     > definitely different algorithms.
> > 
> >     >> Ben didn't say what OpenSSL did.
> > 
> >     > The relevant policy body voted and approved an exception, so OpenSSL now
> >     > exposes pre-standardization Keccak as well as SHA-3.
> > 
> > Did this require an OID?  (like, can I use it in CMS?)
> > Would the lack of an OID for pre-Keccak have made a difference to the
> > outcome?
> 
> With openssl 3.0.0, most operations use human-readable name when lookup is
> needed, so there's no OID listed in
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/524f12611040de64cda13dd148ad1b8ca559c730

Which means that for cases where an OID is needed, you can't use it.


Kurt