# Tag Info

10

Yes, of course there is a benefit to signing unencrypted emails. The article you cite is solely about the combination of signature and encryption; it doesn't directly say anything about signing unencrypted emails. There is an important concern raised by the article which does apply to unencrypted emails, but that's because that concern applies equally ...

8

Yes. Modern cryptosystems are designed and analysed under the assumption that the key is never used for anything else. If you use your encryption keys for digital signatures, you are violating that assumption, and it is very easy to construct schemes where this violation will compromise security. It is possible to construct schemes that can use the same ...

8

The article you linked to predates the S/MIME 3.2 spec. If your client is sending S/MIME 3.2 messages, it should support header protection. Refer to RFC 5751 Section 3.1: In order to protect outer, non-content-related message header fields (for instance, the "Subject", "To", "From", and "Cc" fields), the sending client MAY wrap a full MIME message ...

7

Short answer No, RSA encryption with a private key is not the same as RSA signature generation. RSA encryption can only be performed with an RSA public key according to the RSA standard. The terms Raw RSA or textbook RSA are often used to indicate RSA without a padding scheme. Raw RSA simply consists of modular exponentiation. Raw RSA is vulnerable to many ...

6

OpenPGP as defined by RFC 4880 knows two different encodings. Binary encoding Obviously, there is no reasonable limitation to an (ASCII) character subset in binary encoding. Radix 64 Radix 64 is also often entitled ASCII armored. In the end, it is a base64 encoding with a checksum. The content may consist of [a-zA-Y0-0+/=]. ASCII-armored OpenPGP ...

6

Because the RFC says so. Signing and verifying using this key format is done according to the Digital Signature Standard [FIPS-186-2] using the SHA-1 hash [FIPS-180-2]. It says the same for RSA half a page down. Apparently the signature algorithm is a defined part of the public key method's specification, rather than being negotiated ...

5

Authentication can either mean entity authentication or data authentication. Data authentication is a means to demonstrate that some specific data originates from a specific source and has not been modified during transmission and/or upon storage. It can be achieved by the use of digital signatures in a public key, i.e., asymmetric, setting or message ...

5

It mainly depends on how the algorithm was selected. If it was selected by a public competition like for AES, then it is likely to be secure. If it was forced in by the NSA such as Dual-EC random number generator, then you may have some doubts. Other questions you may want to ask yourself are: Is this an "original" algorithm or was the problem that it ...

5

In a nutshell there are two main uses cases for signing an existing signature: validation: the signature of another person (ex: a superior) is required to give effect to a primary signature. The second signature covers the content, the first signature and potentially additional data added by the second signer. witness / notary: a second person signs only ...

5

Informally, a signature scheme with message recovery is one where some or all of the message is embedded in the signature, allowing to conserve bandwidth when transmitting a signed message, compared to a signature scheme with appendix. Total message recovery A signature scheme with total message recovery [some sources make total implicit, e.g. the HAC ...

5

SafeCurves lists some ways to compare the security of elliptic curves. Their security criteria are split to "ECDLP security" and "ECC security". Failing the former basically means "there is no way to use this curve securely in general" while the latter "it is difficult to implement this curve securely". None of the (few) BouncyCastle-supported curves that ...

4

First of all I do not know your implementation, but it seems that you have some basic misunderstandings. Signature: ECDSA(sha256(Data) ) ECDSA is typically implemented in a way that you do not explicitly hash the data prior to passing it to the signing algorithm (but as this might be your own implementation and signing may still work correctly). ...

4

Yes. An independent witness to the signing may vouch for the initial signing, and do so by signing the whole document. E.g. this could indicate that the signing was done by an officer of the company and not a rogue employee.

4

It depends on what you mean by RSA. If you mean the plain textbook RSA where $P = C^d \bmod n$ (decryption with private key $d$) and $S = M^d \bmod n$ (signature generation), then yes, they are the same. However, textbook RSA is inherently unsafe, and for real-life RSA such as RSA-OAEP+ (encryption) or RSA-PSS (signatures) signing is not the same as ...

4

Guillou and Quisquater (link) present a zero-knowledge proof of an RSA signature. Basically, the scheme is as follows: Public knowledge: RSA modulus $n$, public RSA exponent $v$, preimage $X$. Secret knowledge for prover: $A$, such that $A^v = X \mod n$. $$\begin{matrix} \mathcal{P} & & \mathcal{V} \\ r \xleftarrow{\} \mathbb{Z}_n^* ... 4 You can use multi-signatures. One example is the BN06 scheme described in the paper: Bellare, Neven - Multi-signatures in the plain public-Key model and a general forking lemma 4 The benefit to signing a non-encrypted email is that any recipient can verify that it was indeed you who wrote that non-encrypted email, unless your key was compromised (or the signing protocol has an exploit). 4 q does not divide s^e-h(m), but p does, so since the gcd must divide both s^e-h(m) and n it's p. To be even more explicit, we know that p divides both s^e-h(m) and n. The only larger divisor of n that is also divisible by p is n itself, but if n would divide s^e-h(m), then q would also divide s^e-h(m), which we already assumed ... 4 Yes, you can, but you would need access to raw or textbook RSA encryption and you would have to implement the PKCS#1 v1.5 or PSS padding primitives yourself. Beware that PKCS#1 v1.5 compatible padding is different for encryption signature generation. If you only have PKCS#1 v1.5 encryption or OAEP encryption available then the encryption routine will ... 4 Yes! (restrictions apply). ISO/IEC 9796-2 (scheme 1, SHA-1 hash, option 1 also know as implicit hash identifier, alternative signature production function) is a fully standard signature scheme, based on RSA, widely used in the Smart Card industry for public key certificates and message authentication, that adds only 22 bytes of signature overhead (if the ... 4 Well, if the hash function is weak, then the attacker might be able to take a valid signature for a signed message, and find a second message for which the signature for this first would also validate for the second. For example, if Alice signs the message "I like chocolate", what Bob might do is find a second message "Alice owes Bob 13,106,107.57", and ... 3 Okay. So first up, let's eliminate encrypt-then-sign. Why is this a problem? The idea behind a signature is to prove that a message came from me even in the presence of malicious actors. If a malicious actor changes the ciphertext under the signature, clearly this invalidates the signature as per expectations, however, that is only one possible attack ... 3 There's an easy attack against public keys with e=3. Here's how it works; the attacker selects an arbitrary message M that hashes to an odd value H (or, more generally, a H of the form k8^n for odd k). Since half of the potential messages hash this way, this is not a severe limitation to the attacker. Then, the attacker looks for a perfect ... 3 If you want N serial numbers, your serial numbers will have to use n bits for uniqueness, where n = \log_2 N. So if you have 100 bits to use for the serial, you could use 20 to get about a million serials and have 80 bits to use for a cryptographic MAC or signature. Now there are two approaches, the symmetric and the asymmetric. In the symmetric ... 3 If you look at exact security, the height matters. The reason is that it defines the number of OTS key pairs and hence the possible number of one time signatures per MSS key pair. To forge a MSS signature, it is enough to generate a forgery for 1 out of 2^h OTS signatures. Hence you get a reduction in the bit security of h bits. 3 RSA-OAEP is an encryption scheme that is CCA secure in the random oracle model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_asymmetric_encryption_padding). You are talking about encrypting/decrypting hashes with some private/public key, but I don't think you're actually talking about encryption schemes. What you probably mean are digital signature schemes ... 3 The paper itself has more details on this: ECDSA, like many other signature systems, asks users to generate not merely a random long-term secret key, but also a new random secret session key r for each message to be signed. ... If the same value r is ever used for 2 diff erent messages the secret key can be computed as well, as ElGamal... It ... 3 Basically because of Fermat's little theorem: if a is not divisible by p then a^{p-1} = 1 mod p. A part of the expression for \delta appears as a power of a in the ElGamal signature verification equation, which "happens" to work because it is reduced modulo p-1 so Fermat's little theorem applies. 3 I guess the answer is no, as long as you are using ECIES then this protocol does not work - you cannot trust the public key of Bob, which is required for ECIES. You could however use ephemeral-static Diffie-Hellman, using ECDH as cryptographic algorithm. Alice would supply the static part as her public key is trusted, Bob may use any key pair. That means ... 3 No, these sorts of attacks are not of any use against RSA -- they are much harder to perform than other existing attacks (and in particular, attacks that factor an RSA modulus). Here is how this precomputation attack works; you assume that someone generating the keys will always MAC (or sign) a specific message:$$S_i = MAC_{K_i}( FixedMessage ) And so ...

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible