RE: RSA Signature Padding

["Santosh Chokhani" <SChokhani@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom,

I am asking because of the paper in the link below.

http://eprint.iacr.org/2009/203 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Gindin [mailto:tgindin@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:54 PM
> To: Santosh Chokhani
> Cc: IETF-pkix
> Subject: Re: RSA Signature Padding
> 
>         Is "we" the right term?  The latest TLS (RFC 5246 
> section 4.7) specifies RSA signatures but does not seem to 
> permit PSS ones.  PKIX at least has PSS in RFC 4055.  We 
> could encourage vendors by producing a consolidated 
> "algorithms" RFC which deprecates the use of MD2 and MD5 for 
> new certificates, while suggesting that any RP vendor 
> supporting sha1WithRSAEncryption as a signatureAlgorithm 
> SHOULD also support id-RSASSA-PSS.  Are you suggesting that 
> we should also tell people not to use 
> sha256WithRSAEncryption, sha384WithRSAEncryption, or 
> sha512WithRSAEncryption as signatureAlgorithm values but to 
> use those hash algorithms as PSS parameters instead?
>         Should such an RFC be targeted for New Year's 2011?
> 
>                 Tom Gindin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Santosh Chokhani" <SChokhani@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: 
> owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 06/03/2009 12:58 PM
> 
> To
> "IETF-pkix" <ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx>
> cc
> 
> Subject
> RSA Signature Padding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not know if this is the right forum.
> 
> Should we encourage vendors to use RSA PSS as we transition 
> to SHA-256 given the weakness in PKCS 1.5 padding?
> 
> Santosh Chokhani
> CygnaCom Solutions
> 
> "Questioning conventional wisdom is key to innovation"
> 
> 
> 
>