Subject: [Unbearable] Signatures are fixed length, right?

From: Bill Cox <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 08:49:57 -0700

Just double-checking.  For RSA, we strip leading 0's on the modulus and
exponent.  Actually, I reject a modulus that is not 256 bytes after
stripping any leading 0's, since that seems like it would not be RSA-2048.
For signatures of any type, I assume it is an opaque value and do not strip
leading 0's.  Is this right?

Bill

---

From: Brian Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 10:22:31 -0600

That's consistent with my interpretation.

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Bill Cox <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Unbearable mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/unbearable
>
>

---

From: Andrei Popov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 17:09:34 +0000

Correct.

Cheers,

Andrei

From: Unbearable [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Brian Campbell
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 9:23 AM
To: Bill Cox <[email-masked]>
Cc: Tokbind WG <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Unbearable] Signatures are fixed length, right?

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Bill Cox <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Just double-checking.  For RSA, we strip leading 0's on the modulus and exponent.  Actually, I reject a modulus that is not 256 bytes after stripping any leading 0's, since that seems like it would not be RSA-2048.  For signatures of any type, I assume it is an opaque value and do not strip leading 0's.  Is this right?

Bill

_______________________________________________
Unbearable mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/unbearable