[43710] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: A note on vendor reaction speed to the e=3 problem
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James A. Donald)
Sat Sep 16 15:35:53 2006
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:35:08 +1000
From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com>
To: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>,
cryptography@metzdowd.com
In-Reply-To: <20060915182239.GA26066@jabberwocky.com>
--
Peter Gutmann wrote:
> > How does [GPG] handle the NULL vs.optional
> > parameters ambiguity?
David Shaw:
> GPG generates a new structure for each comparison, so
> just doesn't include any extra parameters on it. Any
> optional parameters on a signature would cause that
> signature to fail validation.
>
> RFC-2440 actually gives the exact bytes to use for the
> ASN.1 stuff, which nicely cuts down on ambiguity.
This amounts to *not* using ASN.1 - treating the ASN.1
data as mere arbitrary padding bits, devoid of
information content.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
KBZXRF1divvJGZ6Zm3lHv3qjnS9Bwhl22NfSlYK3
4zPRSIE0Q6qUaTtmKPPoKOsPNzAtcdWuthGi5nNTi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
