[strongSwan-dev] RSA-PSS-SHA256

[Tobias Brunner]

Hi Sahana,

> Is there a reason why a new errata was not reported with the 2nd and
> 15th byte changed (rightly done as in the current strongswan
> identifier/ASN.1 blob) from the rejected errata?
> 
> Just want to know which ASN.1 blob we should use to interop and maybe
> standardise/generalise it since the RFC ASN.1 blob (72 byte long) and
> the rejected errata are wrong.

Please read Tero's remarks below the erratas ("VERIFIER NOTES").  While
as sender you should e.g. not explicitly encode SHA-1 or send the
trailerField (i.e. the encoding from the erratas, with corrected length,
should be used) a recipient must understand both formats.  So the ASN.1
blobs in the RFC are not really wrong (they can be parsed perfectly
fine), they are just too explicit.

Regards,
Tobias