> On Apr 23, 2018, at 7:44 PM, Salz, Rich via openssl-users <openssl-users@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Your key starts with EF... Since that has the high-bit on, it should be encoded with a leading zero.
Are you sure? That does not look like a key to me...
More likely to be the signature block. The broken one
is one byte shorter, and perhaps the issue is that the
RSA encrypted data has a leading byte that happens to
be zero (1 chance in ~<256 depending on high bytes of
modulus), and this got left out. Hence:
int_rsa_verify:wrong signature length:../crypto/rsa/rsa_sign.c:132:
The code in question is:
if (siglen != (size_t)RSA_size(rsa)) {
RSAerr(RSA_F_INT_RSA_VERIFY, RSA_R_WRONG_SIGNATURE_LENGTH);
return 0;
}
which clearly shows that signature lengths are expected to be
exactly the same size as the modulus (padded with leading zeros
as needed).
Note that per:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8017#section-8.2.1
the signature length MUST be the same as the modulus length.
A 256-byte modulus goes with a 2048-bit key.
--
Viktor.
--
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
