gpgsm --import of CA certificate: Bad signature?

Werner Koch wk at
Wed Apr 18 12:33:31 CEST 2007

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:39, simon at said:

> RFC 3279 is updated by RFC 4055 which says in section 2.1 (in
> particular the second paragraph):

Which is actually Peter's text but with a different suggestion.

> Although it may be argued that RFC 4055 only applies to RSA-PSS,
> although this particular section is not clear that it only applies to

The problem is that allowing for different encodings will require a
complete DER (or well for some old specs even BER) parser in libgcrypt.
Not long ago most crypto libraries showed implementaion flaws in that -
libgcrypt didn't suffer from this due its poor man's and simple approach
to checkthe RSA signature.  Given that the code in gpgsm/libgcrypt has
passed several compatibility tests I doubnt that it is a good idea to
change it now and open the way to introduce new bugs.

> I should probably change GnuTLS here.

I'd appreciate that.  If it later turns out that too many gnutls created
certificates are in use we might consider to add a hack to gpgsm just
for the SHA-1 case.



More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list