<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Cryptography: RSA key validation in Intel® Integrated Performance Primitives</title>
    <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Cryptography-RSA-key-validation/m-p/910841#M14185</link>
    <description>Hi Chao&lt;BR /&gt;Thank you for replay&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I have two remarks&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;1. I think, the function RSAValidate should not return:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt; ippStsNoErr: No error, it's OK&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt; when the appropriate P,Q are not set (and the validation fails-&lt;BR /&gt; -the case of pRSAprv1)&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;2. I think that the user should be warned (for example in the manual)&lt;BR /&gt; that if she/he sets the private key as the pair N,D, then the &lt;BR /&gt; validation is impossible&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;3. I can understand the present approach (for its efficiency) &lt;BR /&gt; (from purely mathematical point of view, the person who knows D&lt;BR /&gt; has to know P,Q but one can cipher without setting these parameters)&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Andrzej Ch.</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:32:07 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>achrzesz2</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2010-01-21T14:32:07Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Cryptography: RSA key validation</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Cryptography-RSA-key-validation/m-p/910839#M14183</link>
      <description>Hello&lt;BR /&gt;In the example from IPP Reference Manual, Vol 4: Cryptography, p. 390&lt;BR /&gt;one can find the line:&lt;BR /&gt; &lt;BR /&gt;ippsRSAValidate(E, 50, &amp;amp;result, pRSAprv2, ippsPRNGen, pRand);&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;which validates the RSA key pRSAprv2 (CRT version).&lt;BR /&gt;In that case the validation is OK.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;My problem is:&lt;BR /&gt;When I try to validate the pRSAprv1 key (no-CRT version) &lt;BR /&gt;which is also set in the same code, ie.&lt;BR /&gt;when I replace the previous validation by:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;ippsRSAValidate(E, 50, &amp;amp;result, pRSAprv1, ippsPRNGen, pRand);&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;then the validation fails.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Can somebody clarify the difference.&lt;BR /&gt;Does the validation function accept the no-CRT version of RSA keys?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Andrzej Ch.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:02:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Cryptography-RSA-key-validation/m-p/910839#M14183</guid>
      <dc:creator>achrzesz2</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-01-19T14:02:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Cryptography: RSA key validation</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Cryptography-RSA-key-validation/m-p/910840#M14184</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Hi Andrzej,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;ippsRSAValidate only validates pRSAprv2 ( (E,P,Q,D) data).&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;pRSAprv1 ((E,N,D) data) is unlike pRSAprv2. It can not be validated by some mathematics.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Chao&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:04:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Cryptography-RSA-key-validation/m-p/910840#M14184</guid>
      <dc:creator>Chao_Y_Intel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-01-21T08:04:41Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Cryptography: RSA key validation</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Cryptography-RSA-key-validation/m-p/910841#M14185</link>
      <description>Hi Chao&lt;BR /&gt;Thank you for replay&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I have two remarks&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;1. I think, the function RSAValidate should not return:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt; ippStsNoErr: No error, it's OK&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt; when the appropriate P,Q are not set (and the validation fails-&lt;BR /&gt; -the case of pRSAprv1)&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;2. I think that the user should be warned (for example in the manual)&lt;BR /&gt; that if she/he sets the private key as the pair N,D, then the &lt;BR /&gt; validation is impossible&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;3. I can understand the present approach (for its efficiency) &lt;BR /&gt; (from purely mathematical point of view, the person who knows D&lt;BR /&gt; has to know P,Q but one can cipher without setting these parameters)&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Andrzej Ch.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:32:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-Integrated-Performance/Cryptography-RSA-key-validation/m-p/910841#M14185</guid>
      <dc:creator>achrzesz2</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-01-21T14:32:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

