[strongSwan] IKE signature scheme RSA_EMSA_PKCS1_SHA1 not acceptable

Binarus lists at binarus.de
Tue Aug 21 08:11:11 CEST 2018


thank you very much again.

On 20.08.2018 23:20, Jafar Al-Gharaibeh wrote:

> The issue does have something to do with non-matching proposals. It is
> just that for signature schemes prior to version 5.3  the signature
> constraints were not enforced. In your configuration you have :
>    leftauth=rsa-4096-sha512
>    rightauth=rsa-4096-sha512
>   That means you expect the certificates at both ends to use use at
> least 4096 RSA keys  and sha512 for signature schemes. You had the
> setting all the time but it wasn't being enforced prior to 5.3, but now
> it is. Instead of fixing it by turning
> signature_authentication_constraints
> off, I would generate new certificates with that strength if you want it
> that strong, or just lower your constraints in left/rightauth to match
> your existing certs. see left/rightauth at [1].

Perhaps I have been not clear enough, but I believe that in my previous
post I have described how I created the certificates when initially
configuring that VPN. To quote myself (from my previous post):

"Furthermore, when initially configuring the VPN between me and my
client (about 2 years ago), I have newly created *all* certificates
involved from scratch, using RSA 4096 and SHA-512."

To be sure that I am not making a fool of myself now, I just have
checked all certificates again (openssl x509 -in <certificate_name>.crt
-text -noout). I did that check not only with each certificate I have
installed at my side, but also with the CA certificate and each
certificate which is installed in the client's device.

For each certificate, the output of the command mentioned above included
the following lines (among others, leading spaces removed):

Signature Algorithm: sha512WithRSAEncryption
Public-Key: (4096 bit)

So I think that your statement from your last post from yesterday is
correct, and that there actually is more to the story. But what?
Probably it is related to RFC 7427 ...

Thank you very much,


More information about the Users mailing list