GcmParams and extend KeyEncryptionAlgorithm with EC derive schemas from CMS - #296
GcmParams and extend KeyEncryptionAlgorithm with EC derive schemas from CMS#296msetina wants to merge 3 commits into
Conversation
|
Extensions for #293 |
|
Helps with support for #278 |
|
Is there a chance that this moves on? It would be a shame to move it to my project. |
|
I don't have merge access on this repository, and as far as I know @wbond is the only person who can cut releases, so I can't help you directly. I've also resorted to registering mappings at runtime in asn1crypto for a number of things (and that includes some niche pyHanko features). So far the burden of maintaining those live patches is less than the effort it'd take to maintain a fork of this lib. Not exactly ideal, but it's the least bad option for me currently 🤷♂️ . |
wbond
left a comment
wbond
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for taking the time to work on this.
If you rebase on master you should get working CI again.
| '2.16.840.1.101.3.4.1.28': 'aes192_wrap_pad', | ||
| '2.16.840.1.101.3.4.1.45': 'aes256_wrap', | ||
| '2.16.840.1.101.3.4.1.48': 'aes256_wrap_pad', | ||
| '1.3.133.16.840.63.0.2':'dhSinglePass_stdDH_sha1kdf_scheme', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you have the URL for an RFC where these are defined? Would be good to add as a comment here.
| 'dhSinglePass_stdDH_sha1kdf_scheme':'1.3.133.16.840.63.0.2', | ||
| 'dhSinglePass_stdDH_sha224kdf_scheme':'1.3.132.1.11.0', | ||
| 'dhSinglePass_stdDH_sha256kdf_scheme':'1.3.132.1.11.1', | ||
| 'dhSinglePass_stdDH_sha384kdf_scheme':'1.3.132.1.11.2', | ||
| 'dhSinglePass_stdDH_sha512kdf_scheme':'1.3.132.1.11.3', | ||
| 'dhSinglePass_cofactorDH_sha1kdf_scheme':'1.3.133.16.840.63.0.3', | ||
| 'dhSinglePass_cofactorDH_sha224kdf_scheme':'1.3.132.1.14.0', | ||
| 'dhSinglePass_cofactorDH_sha256kdf_scheme':'1.3.132.1.14.1', | ||
| 'dhSinglePass_cofactorDH_sha384kdf_scheme':'1.3.132.1.14.2', | ||
| 'dhSinglePass_cofactorDH_sha512kdf_scheme':'1.3.132.1.14.3', | ||
| 'mqvSinglePass_sha1kdf_scheme':'1.3.133.16.840.63.0.16', | ||
| 'mqvSinglePass_sha224kdf_scheme':'1.3.132.1.15.0', | ||
| 'mqvSinglePass_sha256kdf_scheme':'1.3.132.1.15.1', | ||
| 'mqvSinglePass_sha384kdf_scheme':'1.3.132.1.15.2', | ||
| 'mqvSinglePass_sha512kdf_scheme':'1.3.132.1.15.3', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Everywhere else in the codebase we use all lowercase under_score notation. Could we switch to that style for consistency?
From a specificity perspective, do we need _scheme at the end of each?
3 participants
Implementing encrypted messages with CMS I noticed that the schemas for wrapping keys with EC key derive. Also the encryption/wrap could not be described when using GCM mode. Both are implemented with tests from RFC 5753 example byte values.