- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hello
In the example from IPP Reference Manual, Vol 4: Cryptography, p. 390
one can find the line:
ippsRSAValidate(E, 50, &result, pRSAprv2, ippsPRNGen, pRand);
which validates the RSA key pRSAprv2 (CRT version).
In that case the validation is OK.
My problem is:
When I try to validate the pRSAprv1 key (no-CRT version)
which is also set in the same code, ie.
when I replace the previous validation by:
ippsRSAValidate(E, 50, &result, pRSAprv1, ippsPRNGen, pRand);
then the validation fails.
Can somebody clarify the difference.
Does the validation function accept the no-CRT version of RSA keys?
Andrzej Ch.
In the example from IPP Reference Manual, Vol 4: Cryptography, p. 390
one can find the line:
ippsRSAValidate(E, 50, &result, pRSAprv2, ippsPRNGen, pRand);
which validates the RSA key pRSAprv2 (CRT version).
In that case the validation is OK.
My problem is:
When I try to validate the pRSAprv1 key (no-CRT version)
which is also set in the same code, ie.
when I replace the previous validation by:
ippsRSAValidate(E, 50, &result, pRSAprv1, ippsPRNGen, pRand);
then the validation fails.
Can somebody clarify the difference.
Does the validation function accept the no-CRT version of RSA keys?
Andrzej Ch.
Link Copied
2 Replies
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi Andrzej,
ippsRSAValidate only validates pRSAprv2 ( (E,P,Q,D) data).
pRSAprv1 ((E,N,D) data) is unlike pRSAprv2. It can not be validated by some mathematics.
Thanks,
Chao
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hi Chao
Thank you for replay
I have two remarks
1. I think, the function RSAValidate should not return:
ippStsNoErr: No error, it's OK
when the appropriate P,Q are not set (and the validation fails-
-the case of pRSAprv1)
2. I think that the user should be warned (for example in the manual)
that if she/he sets the private key as the pair N,D, then the
validation is impossible
3. I can understand the present approach (for its efficiency)
(from purely mathematical point of view, the person who knows D
has to know P,Q but one can cipher without setting these parameters)
Andrzej Ch.
Thank you for replay
I have two remarks
1. I think, the function RSAValidate should not return:
ippStsNoErr: No error, it's OK
when the appropriate P,Q are not set (and the validation fails-
-the case of pRSAprv1)
2. I think that the user should be warned (for example in the manual)
that if she/he sets the private key as the pair N,D, then the
validation is impossible
3. I can understand the present approach (for its efficiency)
(from purely mathematical point of view, the person who knows D
has to know P,Q but one can cipher without setting these parameters)
Andrzej Ch.
Reply
Topic Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page