Network Working Group J. Jonsson
Request for Comments: 3447 B. Kaliski
Obsoletes: 2437 RSA Laboratories
Category: Informational February 2003
Public-Key Cryptography Standards (PKCS) #1: RSA Cryptography
Specifications Version 2.1
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This memo represents a republication of PKCS #1 v2.1 from RSA
Laboratories' Public-Key Cryptography Standards (PKCS) series, and
change control is retained within the PKCS process. The body of this
document is taken directly from the PKCS #1 v2.1 document, with
certain corrections made during the publication process.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...............................................2
2. Notation...................................................3
3. Key types..................................................6
3.1 RSA public key..........................................6
3.2 RSA private key.........................................7
4. Data conversion primitives.................................8
4.1 I2OSP...................................................9
4.2 OS2IP...................................................9
5. Cryptographic primitives..................................10
5.1 Encryption and decryption primitives...................10
5.2 Signature and verification primitives..................12
6. Overview of schemes.......................................14
7. Encryption schemes........................................15
7.1 RSAES-OAEP.............................................16
7.2 RSAES-PKCS1-v1_5.......................................23
8. Signature schemes with appendix...........................27
8.1 RSASSA-PSS.............................................29
8.2 RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5......................................32
9. Encoding methods for signatures with appendix.............35
9.1 EMSA-PSS...............................................36
9.2 EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5........................................41
Appendix A. ASN.1 syntax...........................................44
A.1 RSA key representation.................................44
A.2 Scheme identification..................................46
Appendix B. Supporting techniques..................................52
B.1 Hash functions.........................................52
B.2 Mask generation functions..............................54
Appendix C. ASN.1 module...........................................56
Appendix D. Intellectual Property Considerations...................63
Appendix E. Revision history.......................................64
Appendix F. References.............................................65
Appendix G. About PKCS.............................................70
Appendix H. Corrections Made During RFC Publication Process........70
Security Considerations............................................70
Acknowledgements...................................................71
Authors' Addresses.................................................71
Full Copyright Statement...........................................72
1. Introduction
This document provides recommendations for the implementation of
public-key cryptography based on the RSA algorithm [42], covering the
following aspects:
* Cryptographic primitives
* Encryption schemes
* Signature schemes with appendix
* ASN.1 syntax for representing keys and for identifying the schemes
The recommendations are intended for general application within
computer and communications systems, and as such include a fair
amount of flexibility. It is expected that application standards
based on these specifications may include additional constraints.
The recommendations are intended to be compatible with the standard
IEEE-1363-2000 [26] and draft standards currently being developed by
the ANSI X9F1 [1] and IEEE P1363 [27] working groups.
This document supersedes PKCS #1 version 2.0 [35][44] but includes
compatible techniques.
The organization of this document is as follows:
* Section 1 is an introduction.
* Section 2 defines some notation used in this document.
* Section 3 defines the RSA public and private key types.
* Sections 4 and 5 define several primitives, or basic mathematical
operations. Data conversion primitives are in Section 4, and
cryptographic primitives (encryption-decryption, signature-
verification) are in Section 5.
* Sections 6, 7, and 8 deal with the encryption and signature
schemes in this document. Section 6 gives an overview. Along
with the methods found in PKCS #1 v1.5, Section 7 defines an
OAEP-based [3] encryption scheme and Section 8 defines a PSS-based
[4][5] signature scheme with appendix.
* Section 9 defines the encoding methods for the signature schemes
in Section 8.
* Appendix A defines the ASN.1 syntax for the keys defined in
Section 3 and the schemes in Sections 7 and 8.
* Appendix B defines the hash functions and the mask generation
function used in this document, including ASN.1 syntax for the
techniques.
* Appendix C gives an ASN.1 module.
* Appendices D, E, F and G cover intellectual property issues,
outline the revision history of PKCS #1, give references to other
publications and standards, and provide general information about
the Public-Key Cryptography Standards.
2. Notation
c ciphertext representative, an integer between 0 and
n-1
C ciphertext, an octet string
d RSA private exponent
d_i additional factor r_i's CRT exponent, a positive
integer such that
e * d_i == 1 (mod (r_i-1)), i = 3, ..., u
dP p's CRT exponent, a positive integer such that
e * dP == 1 (mod (p-1))
dQ q's CRT exponent, a positive integer such that
e * dQ == 1 (mod (q-1))
e RSA public exponent
EM encoded message, an octet string
emBits (intended) length in bits of an encoded message EM
emLen (intended) length in octets of an encoded message EM
GCD(. , .) greatest common divisor of two nonnegative integers
Hash hash function
hLen output length in octets of hash function Hash
k length in octets of the RSA modulus n
K RSA private key
L optional RSAES-OAEP label, an octet string
LCM(., ..., .) least common multiple of a list of nonnegative
integers
m message representative, an integer between 0 and n-1
M message, an octet string
mask MGF output, an octet string
maskLen (intended) length of the octet string mask
MGF mask generation function
mgfSeed seed from which mask is generated, an octet string
mLen length in octets of a message M
n RSA modulus, n = r_1 * r_2 * ... * r_u , u >= 2
(n, e) RSA public key
p, q first two prime factors of the RSA modulus n
qInv CRT coefficient, a positive integer less than p such
that
q * qInv == 1 (mod p)
r_i prime factors of the RSA modulus n, including r_1 = p,
r_2 = q, and additional factors if any
s signature representative, an integer between 0 and n-1
S signature, an octet string
sLen length in octets of the EMSA-PSS salt
t_i additional prime factor r_i's CRT coefficient, a
positive integer less than r_i such that
r_1 * r_2 * ... * r_(i-1) * t_i == 1 (mod r_i) ,
i = 3, ... , u
u number of prime factors of the RSA modulus, u >= 2
x a nonnegative integer
X an octet string corresponding to x
xLen (intended) length of the octet string X
0x indicator of hexadecimal representation of an octet or
an octet string; "0x48" denotes the octet with
hexadecimal value 48; "(0x)48 09 0e" denotes the
string of three consecutive octets with hexadecimal
value 48, 09, and 0e, respectively
\lambda(n) LCM(r_1-1, r_2-1, ... , r_u-1)
\xor bit-wise exclusive-or of two octet strings
\ceil(.) ceiling function; \ceil(x) is the smallest integer
larger than or equal to the real number x
|| concatenation operator
== congruence symbol; a == b (mod n) means that the
integer n divides the integer a - b
Note. The CRT can be applied in a non-recursive as well as a
recursive way. In this document a recursive approach following
Garner's algorithm [22] is used. See also Note 1 in Section 3.2.
3. Key types
Two key types are employed in the primitives and schemes defined in
this document: RSA public key and RSA private key. Together, an RSA
public key and an RSA private key form an RSA key pair.
This specification supports so-called "multi-prime" RSA where the
modulus may have more than two prime factors. The benefit of multi-
prime RSA is lower computational cost for the decryption and
signature primitives, provided that the CRT (Chinese Remainder
Theorem) is used. Better performance can be achieved on single
processor platforms, but to a greater extent on multiprocessor
platforms, where the modular exponentiations involved can be done in
parallel.
For a discussion on how multi-prime affects the security of the RSA
cryptosystem, the reader is referred to [49].
3.1 RSA public key
For the purposes of this document, an RSA public key consists of two
components:
n the RSA modulus, a positive integer
e the RSA public exponent, a positive integer
In a valid RSA public key, the RSA modulus n is a product of u
distinct odd primes r_i, i = 1, 2, ..., u, where u >= 2, and the RSA
public exponent e is an integer between 3 and n - 1 satisfying GCD(e,
\lambda(n)) = 1, where \lambda(n) = LCM(r_1 - 1, ..., r_u - 1). By
convention, the first two primes r_1 and r_2 may also be denoted p
and q respectively.
A recommended syntax for interchanging RSA public keys between
implementations is given in Appendix A.1.1; an implementation's
internal representation may differ.
3.2 RSA private key
For the purposes of this document, an RSA private key may have either
of two representations.
1. The first representation consists of the pair (n, d), where the
components have the following meanings:
n the RSA modulus, a positive integer
d the RSA private exponent, a positive integer
2. The second representation consists of a quintuple (p, q, dP, dQ,
qInv) and a (possibly empty) sequence of triplets (r_i, d_i, t_i),
i = 3, ..., u, one for each prime not in the quintuple, where the
components have the following meanings:
p the first factor, a positive integer
q the second factor, a positive integer
dP the first factor's CRT exponent, a positive integer
dQ the second factor's CRT exponent, a positive integer
qInv the (first) CRT coefficient, a positive integer
r_i the i-th factor, a positive integer
d_i the i-th factor's CRT exponent, a positive integer
t_i the i-th factor's CRT coefficient, a positive integer
In a valid RSA private key with the first representation, the RSA
modulus n is the same as in the corresponding RSA public key and is
the product of u distinct odd primes r_i, i = 1, 2, ..., u, where u
>= 2. The RSA private exponent d is a positive integer less than n
satisfying
e * d == 1 (mod \lambda(n)),
where e is the corresponding RSA public exponent and \lambda(n) is
defined as in Section 3.1.
In a valid RSA private key with the second representation, the two
factors p and q are the first two prime factors of the RSA modulus n
(i.e., r_1 and r_2), the CRT exponents dP and dQ are positive
integers less than p and q respectively satisfying
e * dP == 1 (mod (p-1))
e * dQ == 1 (mod (q-1)) ,
and the CRT coefficient qInv is a positive integer less than p
satisfying
q * qInv == 1 (mod p).
If u > 2, the representation will include one or more triplets (r_i,
d_i, t_i), i = 3, ..., u. The factors r_i are the additional prime
factors of the RSA modulus n. Each CRT exponent d_i (i = 3, ..., u)
satisfies
e * d_i == 1 (mod (r_i - 1)).
Each CRT coefficient t_i (i = 3, ..., u) is a positive integer less
than r_i satisfying
R_i * t_i == 1 (mod r_i) ,
where R_i = r_1 * r_2 * ... * r_(i-1).
A recommended syntax for interchanging RSA private keys between
implementations, which includes components from both representations,
is given in Appendix A.1.2; an implementation's internal
representation may differ.
Notes.
1. The definition of the CRT coefficients here and the formulas that
use them in the primitives in Section 5 generally follow Garner's
algorithm [22] (see also Algorithm 14.71 in [37]). However, for
compatibility with the representations of RSA private keys in PKCS
#1 v2.0 and previous versions, the roles of p and q are reversed
compared to the rest of the primes. Thus, the first CRT
coefficient, qInv, is defined as the inverse of q mod p, rather
than as the inverse of R_1 mod r_2, i.e., of p mod q.
2. Quisquater and Couvreur [40] observed the benefit of applying the
Chinese Remainder Theorem to RSA operations.
4. Data conversion primitives
Two data conversion primitives are employed in the schemes defined in
this document:
* I2OSP - Integer-to-Octet-String primitive
* OS2IP - Octet-String-to-Integer primitive
For the purposes of this document, and consistent with ASN.1 syntax,
an octet string is an ordered sequence of octets (eight-bit bytes).
The sequence is indexed from first (conventionally, leftmost) to last
(rightmost). For purposes of conversion to and from integers, the
first octet is considered the most significant in the following
conversion primitives.
4.1 I2OSP
I2OSP converts a nonnegative integer to an octet string of a
specified length.
I2OSP (x, xLen)
Input:
x nonnegative integer to be converted
xLen intended length of the resulting octet string
Output:
X corresponding octet string of length xLen
Error: "integer too large"
Steps:
1. If x >= 256^xLen, output "integer too large" and stop.
2. Write the integer x in its unique xLen-digit representation in
base 256:
x = x_(xLen-1) 256^(xLen-1) + x_(xLen-2) 256^(xLen-2) + ...
+ x_1 256 + x_0,
where 0 <= x_i < 256 (note that one or more leading digits will be
zero if x is less than 256^(xLen-1)).
3. Let the octet X_i have the integer value x_(xLen-i) for 1 <= i <=
xLen. Output the octet string
X = X_1 X_2 ... X_xLen.
4.2 OS2IP
OS2IP converts an octet string to a nonnegative integer.
OS2IP (X)
Input:
X octet string to be converted
Output:
x corresponding nonnegative integer
Steps:
1. Let X_1 X_2 ... X_xLen be the octets of X from first to last,
and let x_(xLen-i) be the integer value of the octet X_i for
1 <= i <= xLen.
2. Let x = x_(xLen-1) 256^(xLen-1) + x_(xLen-2) 256^(xLen-2) + ...
+ x_1 256 + x_0.
3. Output x.
5. Cryptographic primitives
Cryptographic primitives are basic mathematical operations on which
cryptographic schemes can be built. They are intended for
implementation in hardware or as software modules, and are not
intended to provide security apart from a scheme.
Four types of primitive are specified in this document, organized in
pairs: encryption and decryption; and signature and verification.
The specifications of the primitives assume that certain conditions
are met by the inputs, in particular that RSA public and private keys
are valid.
5.1 Encryption and decryption primitives
An encryption primitive produces a ciphertext representative from a
message representative under the control of a public key, and a
decryption primitive recovers the message representative from the
ciphertext representative under the control of the corresponding
private key.
One pair of encryption and decryption primitives is employed in the
encryption schemes defined in this document and is specified here:
RSAEP/RSADP. RSAEP and RSADP involve the same mathematical
operation, with different keys as input.
The primitives defined here are the same as IFEP-RSA/IFDP-RSA in IEEE
Std 1363-2000 [26] (except that support for multi-prime RSA has been
added) and are compatible with PKCS #1 v1.5.
The main mathematical operation in each primitive is exponentiation.
5.1.1 RSAEP
RSAEP ((n, e), m)
Input:
(n, e) RSA public key
m message representative, an integer between 0 and n - 1
Output:
c ciphertext representative, an integer between 0 and n - 1
Error: "message representative out of range"
Assumption: RSA public key (n, e) is valid
Steps:
1. If the message representative m is not between 0 and n - 1, output
"message representative out of range" and stop.
2. Let c = m^e mod n.
3. Output c.
5.1.2 RSADP
RSADP (K, c)
Input:
K RSA private key, where K has one of the following forms:
- a pair (n, d)
- a quintuple (p, q, dP, dQ, qInv) and a possibly empty
sequence of triplets (r_i, d_i, t_i), i = 3, ..., u
c ciphertext representative, an integer between 0 and n - 1
Output:
m message representative, an integer between 0 and n - 1
Error: "ciphertext representative out of range"
Assumption: RSA private key K is valid
Steps:
1. If the ciphertext representative c is not between 0 and n - 1,
output "ciphertext representative out of range" and stop.
2. The message representative m is computed as follows.
a. If the first form (n, d) of K is used, let m = c^d mod n.
b. If the second form (p, q, dP, dQ, qInv) and (r_i, d_i, t_i)
of K is used, proceed as follows:
i. Let m_1 = c^dP mod p and m_2 = c^dQ mod q.
ii. If u > 2, let m_i = c^(d_i) mod r_i, i = 3, ..., u.
iii. Let h = (m_1 - m_2) * qInv mod p.
iv. Let m = m_2 + q * h.
v. If u > 2, let R = r_1 and for i = 3 to u do
1. Let R = R * r_(i-1).
2. Let h = (m_i - m) * t_i mod r_i.
3. Let m = m + R * h.
3. Output m.
Note. Step 2.b can be rewritten as a single loop, provided that one
reverses the order of p and q. For consistency with PKCS #1 v2.0,
however, the first two primes p and q are treated separately from
the additional primes.
5.2 Signature and verification primitives
A signature primitive produces a signature representative from a
message representative under the control of a private key, and a
verification primitive recovers the message representative from the
signature representative under the control of the corresponding
public key. One pair of signature and verification primitives is
employed in the signature schemes defined in this document and is
specified here: RSASP1/RSAVP1.
The primitives defined here are the same as IFSP-RSA1/IFVP-RSA1 in
IEEE 1363-2000 [26] (except that support for multi-prime RSA has
been added) and are compatible with PKCS #1 v1.5.
The main mathematical operation in each primitive is
exponentiation, as in the encryption and decryption primitives of
Section 5.1. RSASP1 and RSAVP1 are the same as RSADP and RSAEP
except for the names of their input and output arguments; they are
distinguished as they are intended for different purposes.
5.2.1 RSASP1
RSASP1 (K, m)
Input:
K RSA private key, where K has one of the following forms:
- a pair (n, d)
- a quintuple (p, q, dP, dQ, qInv) and a (possibly empty)
sequence of triplets (r_i, d_i, t_i), i = 3, ..., u
m message representative, an integer between 0 and n - 1
Output:
s signature representative, an integer between 0 and n - 1
Error: "message representative out of range"
Assumption: RSA private key K is valid
Steps:
1. If the message representative m is not between 0 and n - 1,
output "message representative out of range" and stop.
2. The signature representative s is computed as follows.
a. If the first form (n, d) of K is used, let s = m^d mod n.
b. If the second form (p, q, dP, dQ, qInv) and (r_i, d_i, t_i)
of K is used, proceed as follows:
i. Let s_1 = m^dP mod p and s_2 = m^dQ mod q.
ii. If u > 2, let s_i = m^(d_i) mod r_i, i = 3, ..., u.
iii. Let h = (s_1 - s_2) * qInv mod p.
iv. Let s = s_2 + q * h.
v. If u > 2, let R = r_1 and for i = 3 to u do
1. Let R = R * r_(i-1).
2. Let h = (s_i - s) * t_i mod r_i.
3. Let s = s + R * h.
3. Output s.
Note. Step 2.b can be rewritten as a single loop, provided that one
reverses the order of p and q. For consistency with PKCS #1 v2.0,
however, the first two primes p and q are treated separately from the
additional primes.
5.2.2 RSAVP1
RSAVP1 ((n, e), s)
Input:
(n, e) RSA public key
s signature representative, an integer between 0 and n - 1
Output:
m message representative, an integer between 0 and n - 1
Error: "signature representative out of range"
Assumption: RSA public key (n, e) is valid
Steps:
1. If the signature representative s is not between 0 and n - 1,
output "signature representative out of range" and stop.
2. Let m = s^e mod n.
3. Output m.
6. Overview of schemes
A scheme combines cryptographic primitives and other techniques to
achieve a particular security goal. Two types of scheme are
specified in this document: encryption schemes and signature schemes
with appendix.
The schemes specified in this document are limited in scope in that
their operations consist only of steps to process data with an RSA
public or private key, and do not include steps for obtaining or
validating the key. Thus, in addition to the scheme operations, an
application will typically include key management operations by which
parties may select RSA public and private keys for a scheme
operation. The specific additional operations and other details are
outside the scope of this document.
As was the case for the cryptographic primitives (Section 5), the
specifications of scheme operations assume that certain conditions
are met by the inputs, in particular that RSA public and private keys
are valid. The behavior of an implementation is thus unspecified
when a key is invalid. The impact of such unspecified behavior
depends on the application. Possible means of addressing key
validation include explicit key validation by the application; key
validation within the public-key infrastructure; and assignment of
liability for operations performed with an invalid key to the party
who generated the key.
A generally good cryptographic practice is to employ a given RSA key
pair in only one scheme. This avoids the risk that vulnerability in
one scheme may compromise the security of the other, and may be
essential to maintain provable security. While RSAES-PKCS1-v1_5
(Section 7.2) and RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 (Section 8.2) have traditionally
been employed together without any known bad interactions (indeed,
this is the model introduced by PKCS #1 v1.5), such a combined use of
an RSA key pair is not recommended for new applications.
To illustrate the risks related to the employment of an RSA key pair
in more than one scheme, suppose an RSA key pair is employed in both
RSAES-OAEP (Section 7.1) and RSAES-PKCS1-v1_5. Although RSAES-OAEP
by itself would resist attack, an opponent might be able to exploit a
weakness in the implementation of RSAES-PKCS1-v1_5 to recover
messages encrypted with either scheme. As another example, suppose
an RSA key pair is employed in both RSASSA-PSS (Section 8.1) and
RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5. Then the security proof for RSASSA-PSS would no
longer be sufficient since the proof does not account for the
possibility that signatures might be generated with a second scheme.
Similar considerations may apply if an RSA key pair is employed in
one of the schemes defined here and in a variant defined elsewhere.
7. Encryption schemes
For the purposes of this document, an encryption scheme consists of
an encryption operation and a decryption operation, where the
encryption operation produces a ciphertext from a message with a
recipient's RSA public key, and the decryption operation recovers the
message from the ciphertext with the recipient's corresponding RSA
private key.
An encryption scheme can be employed in a variety of applications. A
typical application is a key establishment protocol, where the
message contains key material to be delivered confidentially from one
party to another. For instance, PKCS #7 [45] employs such a protocol
to deliver a content-encryption key from a sender to a recipient; the
encryption schemes defined here would be suitable key-encryption
algorithms in that context.
Two encryption schemes are specified in this document: RSAES-OAEP and
RSAES-PKCS1-v1_5. RSAES-OAEP is recommended for new applications;
RSAES-PKCS1-v1_5 is included only for compatibility with existing
applications, and is not recommended for new applications.
The encryption schemes given here follow a general model similar to
that employed in IEEE Std 1363-2000 [26], combining encryption and
decryption primitives with an encoding method for encryption. The
encryption operations apply a message encoding operation to a message
to produce an encoded message, which is then converted to an integer
message representative. An encryption primitive is applied to the
message representative to produce the ciphertext. Reversing this,
the decryption operations apply a decryption primitive to the
ciphertext to recover a message representative, which is then
converted to an octet string encoded message. A message decoding
operation is applied to the encoded message to recover the message
and verify the correctness of the decryption.
To avoid implementation weaknesses related to the way errors are
handled within the decoding operation (see [6] and [36]), the
encoding and decoding operations for RSAES-OAEP and RSAES-PKCS1-v1_5
are embedded in the specifications of the respective encryption
schemes rather than defined in separate specifications. Both
encryption schemes are compatible with the corresponding schemes in
PKCS #1 v2.0.
7.1 RSAES-OAEP
RSAES-OAEP combines the RSAEP and RSADP primitives (Sections 5.1.1
and 5.1.2) with the EME-OAEP encoding method (step 1.b in Section
7.1.1 and step 3 in Section 7.1.2). EME-OAEP is based on Bellare and
Rogaway's Optimal Asymmetric Encryption scheme [3]. (OAEP stands for
"Optimal Asymmetric Encryption Padding."). It is compatible with the
IFES scheme defined in IEEE Std 1363-2000 [26], where the encryption
and decryption primitives are IFEP-RSA and IFDP-RSA and the message
encoding method is EME-OAEP. RSAES-OAEP can operate on messages of
length up to k - 2hLen - 2 octets, where hLen is the length of the
output from the underlying hash function and k is the length in
octets of the recipient's RSA modulus.
Assuming that computing e-th roots modulo n is infeasible and the
mask generation function in RSAES-OAEP has appropriate properties,
RSAES-OAEP is semantically secure against adaptive chosen-ciphertext
attacks. This assurance is provable in the sense that the difficulty
of breaking RSAES-OAEP can be directly related to the difficulty of
inverting the RSA function, provided that the mask generation
function is viewed as a black box or random oracle; see [21] and the
note below for further discussion.
Both the encryption and the decryption operations of RSAES-OAEP take
the value of a label L as input. In this version of PKCS #1, L is
the empty string; other uses of the label are outside the scope of
this document. See Appendix A.2.1 for the relevant ASN.1 syntax.
RSAES-OAEP is parameterized by the choice of hash function and mask
generation function. This choice should be fixed for a given RSA
key. Suggested hash and mask generation functions are given in
Appendix B.
Note. Recent results have helpfully clarified the security
properties of the OAEP encoding method [3] (roughly the procedure
described in step 1.b in Section 7.1.1). The background is as
follows. In 1994, Bellare and Rogaway [3] introduced a security
concept that they denoted plaintext awareness (PA94). They proved
that if a deterministic public-key encryption primitive (e.g., RSAEP)
is hard to invert without the private key, then the corresponding
OAEP-based encryption scheme is plaintext-aware (in the random oracle
model), meaning roughly that an adversary cannot produce a valid
ciphertext without actually "knowing" the underlying plaintext.
Plaintext awareness of an encryption scheme is closely related to the
resistance of the scheme against chosen-ciphertext attacks. In such
attacks, an adversary is given the opportunity to send queries to an
oracle simulating the decryption primitive. Using the results of
these queries, the adversary attempts to decrypt a challenge
ciphertext.
However, there are two flavors of chosen-ciphertext attacks, and PA94
implies security against only one of them. The difference relies on
what the adversary is allowed to do after she is given the challenge
ciphertext. The indifferent attack scenario (denoted CCA1) does not
admit any queries to the decryption oracle after the adversary is
given the challenge ciphertext, whereas the adaptive scenario
(denoted CCA2) does (except that the decryption oracle refuses to
decrypt the challenge ciphertext once it is published). In 1998,
Bellare and Rogaway, together with Desai and Pointcheval [2], came up
with a new, stronger notion of plaintext awareness (PA98) that does
imply security against CCA2.
To summarize, there have been two potential sources for
misconception: that PA94 and PA98 are equivalent concepts; or that
CCA1 and CCA2 are equivalent concepts. Either assumption leads to
the conclusion that the Bellare-Rogaway paper implies security of
OAEP against CCA2, which it does not.
(Footnote: It might be fair to mention that PKCS #1 v2.0 cites [3]
and claims that "a chosen ciphertext attack is ineffective against a
plaintext-aware encryption scheme such as RSAES-OAEP" without
specifying the kind of plaintext awareness or chosen ciphertext
attack considered.)
OAEP has never been proven secure against CCA2; in fact, Victor Shoup
[48] has demonstrated that such a proof does not exist in the general
case. Put briefly, Shoup showed that an adversary in the CCA2
scenario who knows how to partially invert the encryption primitive
but does not know how to invert it completely may well be able to
break the scheme. For example, one may imagine an attacker who is
able to break RSAES-OAEP if she knows how to recover all but the
first 20 bytes of a random integer encrypted with RSAEP. Such an
attacker does not need to be able to fully invert RSAEP, because she
does not use the first 20 octets in her attack.
Still, RSAES-OAEP is secure against CCA2, which was proved by
Fujisaki, Okamoto, Pointcheval, and Stern [21] shortly after the
announcement of Shoup's result. Using clever lattice reduction
techniques, they managed to show how to invert RSAEP completely given
a sufficiently large part of the pre-image. This observation,
combined with a proof that OAEP is secure against CCA2 if the
underlying encryption primitive is hard to partially invert, fills
the gap between what Bellare and Rogaway proved about RSAES-OAEP and
what some may have believed that they proved. Somewhat
paradoxically, we are hence saved by an ostensible weakness in RSAEP
(i.e., the whole inverse can be deduced from parts of it).
Unfortunately however, the security reduction is not efficient for
concrete parameters. While the proof successfully relates an
adversary Adv against the CCA2 security of RSAES-OAEP to an algorithm
Inv inverting RSA, the probability of success for Inv is only
approximately \epsilon^2 / 2^18, where \epsilon is the probability of
success for Adv.
(Footnote: In [21] the probability of success for the inverter was
\epsilon^2 / 4. The additional factor 1 / 2^16 is due to the eight
fixed zero bits at the beginning of the encoded message EM, which are
not present in the variant of OAEP considered in [21] (Inv must apply
Adv twice to invert RSA, and each application corresponds to a factor
1 / 2^8).)
In addition, the running time for Inv is approximately t^2, where t
is the running time of the adversary. The consequence is that we
cannot exclude the possibility that attacking RSAES-OAEP is
considerably easier than inverting RSA for concrete parameters.
Still, the existence of a security proof provides some assurance that
the RSAES-OAEP construction is sounder than ad hoc constructions such
as RSAES-PKCS1-v1_5.
Hybrid encryption schemes based on the RSA-KEM key encapsulation
paradigm offer tight proofs of security directly applicable to
concrete parameters; see [30] for discussion. Future versions of
PKCS #1 may specify schemes based on this paradigm.
7.1.1 Encryption operation
RSAES-OAEP-ENCRYPT ((n, e), M, L)
Options:
Hash hash function (hLen denotes the length in octets of the hash
function output)
MGF mask generation function
Input:
(n, e) recipient's RSA public key (k denotes the length in octets
of the RSA modulus n)
M message to be encrypted, an octet string of length mLen,
where mLen <= k - 2hLen - 2
L optional label to be associated with the message; the
default value for L, if L is not provided, is the empty
string
Output:
C ciphertext, an octet string of length k
Errors: "message too long"; "label too long"
Assumption: RSA public key (n, e) is valid
Steps:
1. Length checking:
a. If the length of L is greater than the input limitation for the
hash function (2^61 - 1 octets for SHA-1), output "label too
long" and stop.
b. If mLen > k - 2hLen - 2, output "message too long" and stop.
2. EME-OAEP encoding (see Figure 1 below):
a. If the label L is not provided, let L be the empty string. Let
lHash = Hash(L), an octet string of length hLen (see the note
below).
b. Generate an octet string PS consisting of k - mLen - 2hLen - 2
zero octets. The length of PS may be zero.
c. Concatenate lHash, PS, a single octet with hexadecimal value
0x01, and the message M to form a data block DB of length k -
hLen - 1 octets as
DB = lHash || PS || 0x01 || M.
d. Generate a random octet string seed of length hLen.
e. Let dbMask = MGF(seed, k - hLen - 1).
f. Let maskedDB = DB \xor dbMask.
g. Let seedMask = MGF(maskedDB, hLen).
h. Let maskedSeed = seed \xor seedMask.
i. Concatenate a single octet with hexadecimal value 0x00,
maskedSeed, and maskedDB to form an encoded message EM of
length k octets as
EM = 0x00 || maskedSeed || maskedDB.
3. RSA encryption:
a. Convert the encoded message EM to an integer message
representative m (see Section 4.2):
m = OS2IP (EM).
b. Apply the RSAEP encryption primitive (Section 5.1.1) to the RSA
public key (n, e) and the message representative m to produce
an integer ciphertext representative c:
c = RSAEP ((n, e), m).
c. Convert the ciphertext representative c to a ciphertext C of
length k octets (see Section 4.1):
C = I2OSP (c, k).
4. Output the ciphertext C.
Note. If L is the empty string, the corresponding hash value lHash
has the following hexadecimal representation for different choices of
Hash:
SHA-1: (0x)da39a3ee 5e6b4b0d 3255bfef 95601890 afd80709
SHA-256: (0x)e3b0c442 98fc1c14 9afbf4c8 996fb924 27ae41e4 649b934c
a495991b 7852b855
SHA-384: (0x)38b060a7 51ac9638 4cd9327e b1b1e36a 21fdb711 14be0743
4c0cc7bf 63f6e1da 274edebf e76f65fb d51ad2f1 4898b95b
SHA-512: (0x)cf83e135 7eefb8bd f1542850 d66d8007 d620e405 0b5715dc
83f4a921 d36ce9ce 47d0d13c 5d85f2b0 ff8318d2 877eec2f
63b931bd 47417a81 a538327a f927da3e
__________________________________________________________________
+----------+--------+--+-------+
DB = | lHash | PS |01| M |
+----------+--------+--+-------+
|
+----------+ V
| seed |--> MGF ---> xor
+----------+ |
| |
+--+ V |
|00| xor <----- MGF <-----|
+--+ | |
| | |
V V V
+--+----------+------------------------------+
EM = |00|maskedSeed| maskedDB |
+--+----------+------------------------------+
EID 633 (Verified) is as follows:Section: 7.1.1
Original Text:
+----------+---------+-------+
DB = | lHash | PS | M |
+----------+---------+-------+
|
+----------+ V
| seed |--> MGF ---> xor
+----------+ |
| |
+--+ V |
|00| xor <----- MGF <-----|
+--+ | |
| | |
V V V
+--+----------+----------------------------+
EM = |00|maskedSeed| maskedDB |
+--+----------+----------------------------+
Corrected Text:
+----------+--------+--+-------+
DB = | lHash | PS |01| M |
+----------+--------+--+-------+
|
+----------+ V
| seed |--> MGF ---> xor
+----------+ |
| |
+--+ V |
|00| xor <----- MGF <-----|
+--+ | |
| | |
V V V
+--+----------+------------------------------+
EM = |00|maskedSeed| maskedDB |
+--+----------+------------------------------+
Notes:
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 1: EME-OAEP encoding operation. lHash is the hash of the
optional label L. Decoding operation follows reverse steps to
recover M and verify lHash and PS.
7.1.2 Decryption operation
RSAES-OAEP-DECRYPT (K, C, L)
Options:
Hash hash function (hLen denotes the length in octets of the hash
function output)
MGF mask generation function
Input:
K recipient's RSA private key (k denotes the length in octets
of the RSA modulus n), where k >= 2hLen + 2
C ciphertext to be decrypted, an octet string of length k
EID 2176 (Verified) is as follows:Section: 7.1.2
Original Text:
K recipient's RSA private key (k denotes the length in octets
of the RSA modulus n)
C ciphertext to be decrypted, an octet string of length k,
where k = 2hLen + 2
Corrected Text:
K recipient's RSA private key (k denotes the length in octets
of the RSA modulus n), where k >= 2hLen + 2
C ciphertext to be decrypted, an octet string of length k
Notes:
k >= 2hLen + 2 belongs to K, not to C.
The >= is already reported in #592.
EID 592 (Verified) is as follows:Section: 7.1.2
Original Text:
C ciphertext to be decrypted, an octet string of length k,
where k = 2hLen + 2
Corrected Text:
C ciphertext to be decrypted, an octet string of length k,
where k >= 2hLen + 2
Notes:
In the "Input:" section, near the top of the page, the condition specified for 'k' is too restrictive. {This becomes clear from the context - see e.g. 'step 1. c.' in mid-page 22.}
L optional label whose association with the message is to be
verified; the default value for L, if L is not provided, is
the empty string
Output:
M message, an octet string of length mLen, where mLen <= k -
2hLen - 2
Error: "decryption error"
Steps:
1. Length checking:
a. If the length of L is greater than the input limitation for the
hash function (2^61 - 1 octets for SHA-1), output "decryption
error" and stop.
b. If the length of the ciphertext C is not k octets, output
"decryption error" and stop.
c. If k < 2hLen + 2, output "decryption error" and stop.
2. RSA decryption:
a. Convert the ciphertext C to an integer ciphertext
representative c (see Section 4.2):
c = OS2IP (C).
b. Apply the RSADP decryption primitive (Section 5.1.2) to the
RSA private key K and the ciphertext representative c to
produce an integer message representative m:
EID 593 (Verified) is as follows:Section: 7.1.2
Original Text:
b. Apply the RSADP decryption primitive (Section 5.1.2) to the
RSA private key K and the ciphertext representative c to
produce an integer message representative m:
Corrected Text:
b. Apply the RSADP decryption primitive (Section 5.1.2) to the
RSA private key K and the ciphertext representative c to
produce an integer message representative m:
Notes:
The first line of 'step 2. b.', is indented too much (by 3 chars)
m = RSADP (K, c).
If RSADP outputs "ciphertext representative out of range"
(meaning that c >= n), output "decryption error" and stop.
c. Convert the message representative m to an encoded message EM
of length k octets (see Section 4.1):
EM = I2OSP (m, k).
3. EME-OAEP decoding:
a. If the label L is not provided, let L be the empty string. Let
lHash = Hash(L), an octet string of length hLen (see the note
in Section 7.1.1).
b. Separate the encoded message EM into a single octet Y, an octet
string maskedSeed of length hLen, and an octet string maskedDB
of length k - hLen - 1 as
EM = Y || maskedSeed || maskedDB.
c. Let seedMask = MGF(maskedDB, hLen).
d. Let seed = maskedSeed \xor seedMask.
e. Let dbMask = MGF(seed, k - hLen - 1).
f. Let DB = maskedDB \xor dbMask.
g. Separate DB into an octet string lHash' of length hLen, a
(possibly empty) padding string PS consisting of octets with
hexadecimal value 0x00, and a message M as
DB = lHash' || PS || 0x01 || M.
If there is no octet with hexadecimal value 0x01 to separate PS
from M, if lHash does not equal lHash', or if Y is nonzero,
output "decryption error" and stop. (See the note below.)
4. Output the message M.
Note. Care must be taken to ensure that an opponent cannot
distinguish the different error conditions in Step 3.g, whether by
error message or timing, or, more generally, learn partial
information about the encoded message EM. Otherwise an opponent may
be able to obtain useful information about the decryption of the
ciphertext C, leading to a chosen-ciphertext attack such as the one
observed by Manger [36].
7.2 RSAES-PKCS1-v1_5
RSAES-PKCS1-v1_5 combines the RSAEP and RSADP primitives (Sections
5.1.1 and 5.1.2) with the EME-PKCS1-v1_5 encoding method (step 1 in
Section 7.2.1 and step 3 in Section 7.2.2). It is mathematically
equivalent to the encryption scheme in PKCS #1 v1.5. RSAES-PKCS1-
v1_5 can operate on messages of length up to k - 11 octets (k is the
octet length of the RSA modulus), although care should be taken to
avoid certain attacks on low-exponent RSA due to Coppersmith,
Franklin, Patarin, and Reiter when long messages are encrypted (see
the third bullet in the notes below and [10]; [14] contains an
improved attack). As a general rule, the use of this scheme for
encrypting an arbitrary message, as opposed to a randomly generated
key, is not recommended.
It is possible to generate valid RSAES-PKCS1-v1_5 ciphertexts without
knowing the corresponding plaintexts, with a reasonable probability
of success. This ability can be exploited in a chosen- ciphertext
attack as shown in [6]. Therefore, if RSAES-PKCS1-v1_5 is to be
used, certain easily implemented countermeasures should be taken to
thwart the attack found in [6]. Typical examples include the
addition of structure to the data to be encoded, rigorous checking of
PKCS #1 v1.5 conformance (and other redundancy) in decrypted
messages, and the consolidation of error messages in a client-server
protocol based on PKCS #1 v1.5. These can all be effective
countermeasures and do not involve changes to a PKCS #1 v1.5-based
protocol. See [7] for a further discussion of these and other
countermeasures. It has recently been shown that the security of the
SSL/TLS handshake protocol [17], which uses RSAES-PKCS1-v1_5 and
certain countermeasures, can be related to a variant of the RSA
problem; see [32] for discussion.
Note. The following passages describe some security recommendations
pertaining to the use of RSAES-PKCS1-v1_5. Recommendations from
version 1.5 of this document are included as well as new
recommendations motivated by cryptanalytic advances made in the
intervening years.
* It is recommended that the pseudorandom octets in step 2 in
Section 7.2.1 be generated independently for each encryption
process, especially if the same data is input to more than one
encryption process. Haastad's results [24] are one motivation for
this recommendation.
* The padding string PS in step 2 in Section 7.2.1 is at least eight
octets long, which is a security condition for public-key
operations that makes it difficult for an attacker to recover data
by trying all possible encryption blocks.
* The pseudorandom octets can also help thwart an attack due to
Coppersmith et al. [10] (see [14] for an improvement of the
attack) when the size of the message to be encrypted is kept
small. The attack works on low-exponent RSA when similar messages
are encrypted with the same RSA public key. More specifically, in
one flavor of the attack, when two inputs to RSAEP agree on a
large fraction of bits (8/9) and low-exponent RSA (e = 3) is used
to encrypt both of them, it may be possible to recover both inputs
with the attack. Another flavor of the attack is successful in
decrypting a single ciphertext when a large fraction (2/3) of the
input to RSAEP is already known. For typical applications, the
message to be encrypted is short (e.g., a 128-bit symmetric key)
so not enough information will be known or common between two
messages to enable the attack. However, if a long message is
encrypted, or if part of a message is known, then the attack may
be a concern. In any case, the RSAES-OAEP scheme overcomes the
attack.
7.2.1 Encryption operation
RSAES-PKCS1-V1_5-ENCRYPT ((n, e), M)
Input:
(n, e) recipient's RSA public key (k denotes the length in octets
of the modulus n)
M message to be encrypted, an octet string of length mLen,
where mLen <= k - 11
Output:
C ciphertext, an octet string of length k
Error: "message too long"
Steps:
1. Length checking: If mLen > k - 11, output "message too long" and
stop.
2. EME-PKCS1-v1_5 encoding:
a. Generate an octet string PS of length k - mLen - 3 consisting
of pseudo-randomly generated nonzero octets. The length of PS
will be at least eight octets.
b. Concatenate PS, the message M, and other padding to form an
encoded message EM of length k octets as
EM = 0x00 || 0x02 || PS || 0x00 || M.
3. RSA encryption:
a. Convert the encoded message EM to an integer message
representative m (see Section 4.2):
m = OS2IP (EM).
b. Apply the RSAEP encryption primitive (Section 5.1.1) to the RSA
public key (n, e) and the message representative m to produce
an integer ciphertext representative c:
c = RSAEP ((n, e), m).
c. Convert the ciphertext representative c to a ciphertext C of
length k octets (see Section 4.1):
C = I2OSP (c, k).
4. Output the ciphertext C.
7.2.2 Decryption operation
RSAES-PKCS1-V1_5-DECRYPT (K, C)
Input:
K recipient's RSA private key
C ciphertext to be decrypted, an octet string of length k,
where k is the length in octets of the RSA modulus n
Output:
M message, an octet string of length at most k - 11
Error: "decryption error"
Steps:
1. Length checking: If the length of the ciphertext C is not k octets
(or if k < 11), output "decryption error" and stop.
2. RSA decryption:
a. Convert the ciphertext C to an integer ciphertext
representative c (see Section 4.2):
c = OS2IP (C).
b. Apply the RSADP decryption primitive (Section 5.1.2) to the RSA
private key (n, d) and the ciphertext representative c to
produce an integer message representative m:
m = RSADP ((n, d), c).
If RSADP outputs "ciphertext representative out of range"
(meaning that c >= n), output "decryption error" and stop.
c. Convert the message representative m to an encoded message EM
of length k octets (see Section 4.1):
EM = I2OSP (m, k).
3. EME-PKCS1-v1_5 decoding: Separate the encoded message EM into an
octet string PS consisting of nonzero octets and a message M as
EM = 0x00 || 0x02 || PS || 0x00 || M.
If the first octet of EM does not have hexadecimal value 0x00, if
the second octet of EM does not have hexadecimal value 0x02, if
there is no octet with hexadecimal value 0x00 to separate PS from
M, or if the length of PS is less than 8 octets, output
"decryption error" and stop. (See the note below.)
4. Output M.
Note. Care shall be taken to ensure that an opponent cannot
distinguish the different error conditions in Step 3, whether by
error message or timing. Otherwise an opponent may be able to obtain
useful information about the decryption of the ciphertext C, leading
to a strengthened version of Bleichenbacher's attack [6]; compare to
Manger's attack [36].
8. Signature schemes with appendix
For the purposes of this document, a signature scheme with appendix
consists of a signature generation operation and a signature
verification operation, where the signature generation operation
produces a signature from a message with a signer's RSA private key,
and the signature verification operation verifies the signature on
the message with the signer's corresponding RSA public key. To
verify a signature constructed with this type of scheme it is
necessary to have the message itself. In this way, signature schemes
with appendix are distinguished from signature schemes with message
recovery, which are not supported in this document.
A signature scheme with appendix can be employed in a variety of
applications. For instance, the signature schemes with appendix
defined here would be suitable signature algorithms for X.509
certificates [28]. Related signature schemes could be employed in
PKCS #7 [45], although for technical reasons the current version of
PKCS #7 separates a hash function from a signature scheme, which is
different than what is done here; see the note in Appendix A.2.3 for
more discussion.
Two signature schemes with appendix are specified in this document:
RSASSA-PSS and RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5. Although no attacks are known
against RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5, in the interest of increased robustness,
RSASSA-PSS is recommended for eventual adoption in new applications.
RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 is included for compatibility with existing
applications, and while still appropriate for new applications, a
gradual transition to RSASSA-PSS is encouraged.
The signature schemes with appendix given here follow a general model
similar to that employed in IEEE Std 1363-2000 [26], combining
signature and verification primitives with an encoding method for
signatures. The signature generation operations apply a message
encoding operation to a message to produce an encoded message, which
is then converted to an integer message representative. A signature
primitive is applied to the message representative to produce the
signature. Reversing this, the signature verification operations
apply a signature verification primitive to the signature to recover
a message representative, which is then converted to an octet string
encoded message. A verification operation is applied to the message
and the encoded message to determine whether they are consistent.
If the encoding method is deterministic (e.g., EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5), the
verification operation may apply the message encoding operation to
the message and compare the resulting encoded message to the
previously derived encoded message. If there is a match, the
signature is considered valid. If the method is randomized (e.g.,
EMSA-PSS), the verification operation is typically more complicated.
For example, the verification operation in EMSA-PSS extracts the
random salt and a hash output from the encoded message and checks
whether the hash output, the salt, and the message are consistent;
the hash output is a deterministic function in terms of the message
and the salt.
For both signature schemes with appendix defined in this document,
the signature generation and signature verification operations are
readily implemented as "single-pass" operations if the signature is
placed after the message. See PKCS #7 [45] for an example format in
the case of RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5.
8.1 RSASSA-PSS
RSASSA-PSS combines the RSASP1 and RSAVP1 primitives with the EMSA-
PSS encoding method. It is compatible with the IFSSA scheme as
amended in the IEEE P1363a draft [27], where the signature and
verification primitives are IFSP-RSA1 and IFVP-RSA1 as defined in
IEEE Std 1363-2000 [26] and the message encoding method is EMSA4.
EMSA4 is slightly more general than EMSA-PSS as it acts on bit
strings rather than on octet strings. EMSA-PSS is equivalent to
EMSA4 restricted to the case that the operands as well as the hash
and salt values are octet strings.
The length of messages on which RSASSA-PSS can operate is either
unrestricted or constrained by a very large number, depending on the
hash function underlying the EMSA-PSS encoding method.
Assuming that computing e-th roots modulo n is infeasible and the
hash and mask generation functions in EMSA-PSS have appropriate
properties, RSASSA-PSS provides secure signatures. This assurance is
provable in the sense that the difficulty of forging signatures can
be directly related to the difficulty of inverting the RSA function,
provided that the hash and mask generation functions are viewed as
black boxes or random oracles. The bounds in the security proof are
essentially "tight", meaning that the success probability and running
time for the best forger against RSASSA-PSS are very close to the
corresponding parameters for the best RSA inversion algorithm; see
[4][13][31] for further discussion.
In contrast to the RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 signature scheme, a hash
function identifier is not embedded in the EMSA-PSS encoded message,
so in theory it is possible for an adversary to substitute a
different (and potentially weaker) hash function than the one
selected by the signer. Therefore, it is recommended that the EMSA-
PSS mask generation function be based on the same hash function. In
this manner the entire encoded message will be dependent on the hash
function and it will be difficult for an opponent to substitute a
different hash function than the one intended by the signer. This
matching of hash functions is only for the purpose of preventing hash
function substitution, and is not necessary if hash function
substitution is addressed by other means (e.g., the verifier accepts
only a designated hash function). See [34] for further discussion of
these points. The provable security of RSASSA-PSS does not rely on
the hash function in the mask generation function being the same as
the hash function applied to the message.
RSASSA-PSS is different from other RSA-based signature schemes in
that it is probabilistic rather than deterministic, incorporating a
randomly generated salt value. The salt value enhances the security
of the scheme by affording a "tighter" security proof than
deterministic alternatives such as Full Domain Hashing (FDH); see [4]
for discussion. However, the randomness is not critical to security.
In situations where random generation is not possible, a fixed value
or a sequence number could be employed instead, with the resulting
provable security similar to that of FDH [12].
8.1.1 Signature generation operation
RSASSA-PSS-SIGN (K, M)
Input:
K signer's RSA private key
M message to be signed, an octet string
Output:
S signature, an octet string of length k, where k is the
length in octets of the RSA modulus n
Errors: "message too long;" "encoding error"
Steps:
1. EMSA-PSS encoding: Apply the EMSA-PSS encoding operation (Section
9.1.1) to the message M to produce an encoded message EM of length
\ceil ((modBits - 1)/8) octets such that the bit length of the
integer OS2IP (EM) (see Section 4.2) is at most modBits - 1, where
modBits is the length in bits of the RSA modulus n:
EM = EMSA-PSS-ENCODE (M, modBits - 1).
Note that the octet length of EM will be one less than k if
modBits - 1 is divisible by 8 and equal to k otherwise. If the
encoding operation outputs "message too long," output "message too
long" and stop. If the encoding operation outputs "encoding
error," output "encoding error" and stop.
2. RSA signature:
a. Convert the encoded message EM to an integer message
representative m (see Section 4.2):
m = OS2IP (EM).
b. Apply the RSASP1 signature primitive (Section 5.2.1) to the RSA
private key K and the message representative m to produce an
integer signature representative s:
s = RSASP1 (K, m).
c. Convert the signature representative s to a signature S of
length k octets (see Section 4.1):
S = I2OSP (s, k).
3. Output the signature S.
8.1.2 Signature verification operation
RSASSA-PSS-VERIFY ((n, e), M, S)
Input:
(n, e) signer's RSA public key
M message whose signature is to be verified, an octet string
S signature to be verified, an octet string of length k, where
k is the length in octets of the RSA modulus n
Output:
"valid signature" or "invalid signature"
Steps:
1. Length checking: If the length of the signature S is not k octets,
output "invalid signature" and stop.
2. RSA verification:
a. Convert the signature S to an integer signature representative
s (see Section 4.2):
s = OS2IP (S).
b. Apply the RSAVP1 verification primitive (Section 5.2.2) to the
RSA public key (n, e) and the signature representative s to
produce an integer message representative m:
m = RSAVP1 ((n, e), s).
If RSAVP1 output "signature representative out of range,"
output "invalid signature" and stop.
c. Convert the message representative m to an encoded message EM
of length emLen = \ceil ((modBits - 1)/8) octets, where modBits
is the length in bits of the RSA modulus n (see Section 4.1):
EM = I2OSP (m, emLen).
Note that emLen will be one less than k if modBits - 1 is
divisible by 8 and equal to k otherwise. If I2OSP outputs
"integer too large," output "invalid signature" and stop.
3. EMSA-PSS verification: Apply the EMSA-PSS verification operation
(Section 9.1.2) to the message M and the encoded message EM to
determine whether they are consistent:
Result = EMSA-PSS-VERIFY (M, EM, modBits - 1).
4. If Result = "consistent," output "valid signature." Otherwise,
output "invalid signature."
8.2. RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5
RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 combines the RSASP1 and RSAVP1 primitives with the
EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 encoding method. It is compatible with the IFSSA
scheme defined in IEEE Std 1363-2000 [26], where the signature and
verification primitives are IFSP-RSA1 and IFVP-RSA1 and the message
encoding method is EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 (which is not defined in IEEE Std
1363-2000, but is in the IEEE P1363a draft [27]).
The length of messages on which RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 can operate is
either unrestricted or constrained by a very large number, depending
on the hash function underlying the EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 method.
Assuming that computing e-th roots modulo n is infeasible and the
hash function in EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 has appropriate properties, RSASSA-
PKCS1-v1_5 is conjectured to provide secure signatures. More
precisely, forging signatures without knowing the RSA private key is
conjectured to be computationally infeasible. Also, in the encoding
method EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5, a hash function identifier is embedded in the
encoding. Because of this feature, an adversary trying to find a
message with the same signature as a previously signed message must
find collisions of the particular hash function being used; attacking
a different hash function than the one selected by the signer is not
useful to the adversary. See [34] for further discussion.
Note. As noted in PKCS #1 v1.5, the EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 encoding method
has the property that the encoded message, converted to an integer
message representative, is guaranteed to be large and at least
somewhat "random". This prevents attacks of the kind proposed by
Desmedt and Odlyzko [16] where multiplicative relationships between
message representatives are developed by factoring the message
representatives into a set of small values (e.g., a set of small
primes). Coron, Naccache, and Stern [15] showed that a stronger form
of this type of attack could be quite effective against some
instances of the ISO/IEC 9796-2 signature scheme. They also analyzed
the complexity of this type of attack against the EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5
encoding method and concluded that an attack would be impractical,
requiring more operations than a collision search on the underlying
hash function (i.e., more than 2^80 operations). Coppersmith,
Halevi, and Jutla [11] subsequently extended Coron et al.'s attack to
break the ISO/IEC 9796-1 signature scheme with message recovery. The
various attacks illustrate the importance of carefully constructing
the input to the RSA signature primitive, particularly in a signature
scheme with message recovery. Accordingly, the EMSA-PKCS-v1_5
encoding method explicitly includes a hash operation and is not
intended for signature schemes with message recovery. Moreover,
while no attack is known against the EMSA-PKCS-v1_5 encoding method,
a gradual transition to EMSA-PSS is recommended as a precaution
against future developments.
8.2.1 Signature generation operation
RSASSA-PKCS1-V1_5-SIGN (K, M)
Input:
K signer's RSA private key
M message to be signed, an octet string
Output:
S signature, an octet string of length k, where k is the
length in octets of the RSA modulus n
Errors: "message too long"; "RSA modulus too short"
Steps:
1. EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 encoding: Apply the EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 encoding
operation (Section 9.2) to the message M to produce an encoded
message EM of length k octets:
EM = EMSA-PKCS1-V1_5-ENCODE (M, k).
If the encoding operation outputs "message too long," output
"message too long" and stop. If the encoding operation outputs
"intended encoded message length too short," output "RSA modulus
too short" and stop.
2. RSA signature:
a. Convert the encoded message EM to an integer message
representative m (see Section 4.2):
m = OS2IP (EM).
b. Apply the RSASP1 signature primitive (Section 5.2.1) to the RSA
private key K and the message representative m to produce an
integer signature representative s:
s = RSASP1 (K, m).
c. Convert the signature representative s to a signature S of
length k octets (see Section 4.1):
S = I2OSP (s, k).
3. Output the signature S.
8.2.2 Signature verification operation
RSASSA-PKCS1-V1_5-VERIFY ((n, e), M, S)
Input:
(n, e) signer's RSA public key
M message whose signature is to be verified, an octet string
S signature to be verified, an octet string of length k, where
k is the length in octets of the RSA modulus n
Output:
"valid signature" or "invalid signature"
Errors: "message too long"; "RSA modulus too short"
Steps:
1. Length checking: If the length of the signature S is not k octets,
output "invalid signature" and stop.
2. RSA verification:
a. Convert the signature S to an integer signature representative
s (see Section 4.2):
s = OS2IP (S).
b. Apply the RSAVP1 verification primitive (Section 5.2.2) to the
RSA public key (n, e) and the signature representative s to
produce an integer message representative m:
m = RSAVP1 ((n, e), s).
If RSAVP1 outputs "signature representative out of range,"
output "invalid signature" and stop.
c. Convert the message representative m to an encoded message
EM of length k octets (see Section 4.1):
EM = I2OSP (m, k).
EID 594 (Verified) is as follows:Section: 8.2.2
Original Text:
c. Convert the message representative m to an encoded message
EM of length k octets (see Section 4.1):
EM' = I2OSP (m, k).
Corrected Text:
c. Convert the message representative m to an encoded message
EM of length k octets (see Section 4.1):
EM = I2OSP (m, k).
Notes:
In 'step 2. c.', in fact "EM" is computed, not "EM'" -- as stated in the text; see also 'step 3.' below.
If I2OSP outputs "integer too large," output "invalid
signature" and stop.
3. EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 encoding: Apply the EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 encoding
operation (Section 9.2) to the message M to produce a second
encoded message EM' of length k octets:
EM' = EMSA-PKCS1-V1_5-ENCODE (M, k).
If the encoding operation outputs "message too long," output
"message too long" and stop. If the encoding operation outputs
"intended encoded message length too short," output "RSA modulus
too short" and stop.
4. Compare the encoded message EM and the second encoded message EM'.
If they are the same, output "valid signature"; otherwise, output
"invalid signature."
Note. Another way to implement the signature verification operation
is to apply a "decoding" operation (not specified in this document)
to the encoded message to recover the underlying hash value, and then
to compare it to a newly computed hash value. This has the advantage
that it requires less intermediate storage (two hash values rather
than two encoded messages), but the disadvantage that it requires
additional code.
9. Encoding methods for signatures with appendix
Encoding methods consist of operations that map between octet string
messages and octet string encoded messages, which are converted to
and from integer message representatives in the schemes. The integer
message representatives are processed via the primitives. The
encoding methods thus provide the connection between the schemes,
which process messages, and the primitives.
An encoding method for signatures with appendix, for the purposes of
this document, consists of an encoding operation and optionally a
verification operation. An encoding operation maps a message M to an
encoded message EM of a specified length. A verification operation
determines whether a message M and an encoded message EM are
consistent, i.e., whether the encoded message EM is a valid encoding
of the message M.
The encoding operation may introduce some randomness, so that
different applications of the encoding operation to the same message
will produce different encoded messages, which has benefits for
provable security. For such an encoding method, both an encoding and
a verification operation are needed unless the verifier can reproduce
the randomness (e.g., by obtaining the salt value from the signer).
For a deterministic encoding method only an encoding operation is
needed.
Two encoding methods for signatures with appendix are employed in the
signature schemes and are specified here: EMSA-PSS and EMSA-PKCS1-
v1_5.
9.1 EMSA-PSS
This encoding method is parameterized by the choice of hash function,
mask generation function, and salt length. These options should be
fixed for a given RSA key, except that the salt length can be
variable (see [31] for discussion). Suggested hash and mask
generation functions are given in Appendix B. The encoding method is
based on Bellare and Rogaway's Probabilistic Signature Scheme (PSS)
[4][5]. It is randomized and has an encoding operation and a
verification operation.
Figure 2 illustrates the encoding operation.
__________________________________________________________________
+-----------+
| M |
+-----------+
|
V
Hash
|
V
+--------+----------+----------+
M' = |Padding1| mHash | salt |
+--------+----------+----------+
|
+--------+----------+ V
DB = |Padding2| salt | Hash
+--------+----------+ |
| |
V | +--+
xor <--- MGF <---| |bc|
| | +--+
| | |
V V V
+-------------------+----------+--+
EM = | maskedDB | H |bc|
+-------------------+----------+--+
EID 595 (Verified) is as follows:Section: 9.1
Original Text:
+-----------+
| M |
+-----------+
|
V
Hash
|
V
+--------+----------+----------+
M' = |Padding1| mHash | salt |
+--------+----------+----------+
|
+--------+----------+ V
DB = |Padding2|maskedseed| Hash
+--------+----------+ |
| |
V | +--+
xor <--- MGF <---| |bc|
| | +--+
| | |
V V V
+-------------------+----------+--+
EM = | maskedDB |maskedseed|bc|
+-------------------+----------+--+
Corrected Text:
+-----------+
| M |
+-----------+
|
V
Hash
|
V
+--------+----------+----------+
M' = |Padding1| mHash | salt |
+--------+----------+----------+
|
+--------+----------+ V
DB = |Padding2| salt | Hash
+--------+----------+ |
| |
V | +--+
xor <--- MGF <---| |bc|
| | +--+
| | |
V V V
+-------------------+----------+--+
EM = | maskedDB | H |bc|
+-------------------+----------+--+
Notes:
Figure 2 names two fields "maskedseed" which in fact are _very_ different, and this nomenclature matches neither the figure caption given nor the subsequent text -- see e.g. 'step 6.' and 'step 8.' on page 39 and 'step 12.' on page 40.
__________________________________________________________________
Figure 2: EMSA-PSS encoding operation. Verification operation
follows reverse steps to recover salt, then forward steps to
recompute and compare H.
Notes.
1. The encoding method defined here differs from the one in Bellare
and Rogaway's submission to IEEE P1363a [5] in three respects:
* It applies a hash function rather than a mask generation
function to the message. Even though the mask generation
function is based on a hash function, it seems more natural to
apply a hash function directly.
* The value that is hashed together with the salt value is the
string (0x)00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 || mHash rather than the
message M itself. Here, mHash is the hash of M. Note that the
hash function is the same in both steps. See Note 3 below for
further discussion. (Also, the name "salt" is used instead of
"seed", as it is more reflective of the value's role.)
* The encoded message in EMSA-PSS has nine fixed bits; the first
bit is 0 and the last eight bits form a "trailer field", the
octet 0xbc. In the original scheme, only the first bit is
fixed. The rationale for the trailer field is for
compatibility with the Rabin-Williams IFSP-RW signature
primitive in IEEE Std 1363-2000 [26] and the corresponding
primitive in the draft ISO/IEC 9796-2 [29].
2. Assuming that the mask generation function is based on a hash
function, it is recommended that the hash function be the same as
the one that is applied to the message; see Section 8.1 for
further discussion.
3. Without compromising the security proof for RSASSA-PSS, one may
perform steps 1 and 2 of EMSA-PSS-ENCODE and EMSA-PSS-VERIFY (the
application of the hash function to the message) outside the
module that computes the rest of the signature operation, so that
mHash rather than the message M itself is input to the module. In
other words, the security proof for RSASSA-PSS still holds even if
an opponent can control the value of mHash. This is convenient if
the module has limited I/O bandwidth, e.g., a smart card. Note
that previous versions of PSS [4][5] did not have this property.
Of course, it may be desirable for other security reasons to have
the module process the full message. For instance, the module may
need to "see" what it is signing if it does not trust the
component that computes the hash value.
4. Typical salt lengths in octets are hLen (the length of the output
of the hash function Hash) and 0. In both cases the security of
RSASSA-PSS can be closely related to the hardness of inverting
RSAVP1. Bellare and Rogaway [4] give a tight lower bound for the
security of the original RSA-PSS scheme, which corresponds roughly
to the former case, while Coron [12] gives a lower bound for the
related Full Domain Hashing scheme, which corresponds roughly to
the latter case. In [13] Coron provides a general treatment with
various salt lengths ranging from 0 to hLen; see [27] for
discussion. See also [31], which adapts the security proofs in
[4][13] to address the differences between the original and the
present version of RSA-PSS as listed in Note 1 above.
5. As noted in IEEE P1363a [27], the use of randomization in
signature schemes - such as the salt value in EMSA-PSS - may
provide a "covert channel" for transmitting information other than
the message being signed. For more on covert channels, see [50].
9.1.1 Encoding operation
EMSA-PSS-ENCODE (M, emBits)
Options:
Hash hash function (hLen denotes the length in octets of the hash
function output)
MGF mask generation function
sLen intended length in octets of the salt
Input:
M message to be encoded, an octet string
emBits maximal bit length of the integer OS2IP (EM) (see Section
4.2), at least 8hLen + 8sLen + 9
Output:
EM encoded message, an octet string of length emLen = \ceil
(emBits/8)
Errors: "encoding error"; "message too long"
Steps:
1. If the length of M is greater than the input limitation for the
hash function (2^61 - 1 octets for SHA-1), output "message too
long" and stop.
2. Let mHash = Hash(M), an octet string of length hLen.
3. If emLen < hLen + sLen + 2, output "encoding error" and stop.
4. Generate a random octet string salt of length sLen; if sLen = 0,
then salt is the empty string.
5. Let
M' = (0x)00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 || mHash || salt;
M' is an octet string of length 8 + hLen + sLen with eight
initial zero octets.
6. Let H = Hash(M'), an octet string of length hLen.
7. Generate an octet string PS consisting of emLen - sLen - hLen - 2
zero octets. The length of PS may be 0.
8. Let DB = PS || 0x01 || salt; DB is an octet string of length
emLen - hLen - 1.
9. Let dbMask = MGF(H, emLen - hLen - 1).
10. Let maskedDB = DB \xor dbMask.
11. Set the leftmost 8emLen - emBits bits of the leftmost octet in
maskedDB to zero.
12. Let EM = maskedDB || H || 0xbc.
13. Output EM.
9.1.2 Verification operation
EMSA-PSS-VERIFY (M, EM, emBits)
Options:
Hash hash function (hLen denotes the length in octets of the hash
function output)
MGF mask generation function
sLen intended length in octets of the salt
Input:
M message to be verified, an octet string
EM encoded message, an octet string of length emLen = \ceil
(emBits/8)
emBits maximal bit length of the integer OS2IP (EM) (see Section
4.2), at least 8hLen + 8sLen + 9
Output:
"consistent" or "inconsistent"
Steps:
1. If the length of M is greater than the input limitation for the
hash function (2^61 - 1 octets for SHA-1), output "inconsistent"
and stop.
2. Let mHash = Hash(M), an octet string of length hLen.
3. If emLen < hLen + sLen + 2, output "inconsistent" and stop.
4. If the rightmost octet of EM does not have hexadecimal value
0xbc, output "inconsistent" and stop.
5. Let maskedDB be the leftmost emLen - hLen - 1 octets of EM, and
let H be the next hLen octets.
6. If the leftmost 8emLen - emBits bits of the leftmost octet in
maskedDB are not all equal to zero, output "inconsistent" and
stop.
7. Let dbMask = MGF(H, emLen - hLen - 1).
8. Let DB = maskedDB \xor dbMask.
9. Set the leftmost 8emLen - emBits bits of the leftmost octet in DB
to zero.
10. If the emLen - hLen - sLen - 2 leftmost octets of DB are not zero
or if the octet at position emLen - hLen - sLen - 1 (the leftmost
position is "position 1") does not have hexadecimal value 0x01,
output "inconsistent" and stop.
11. Let salt be the last sLen octets of DB.
12. Let
M' = (0x)00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 || mHash || salt ;
M' is an octet string of length 8 + hLen + sLen with eight
initial zero octets.
13. Let H' = Hash(M'), an octet string of length hLen.
14. If H = H', output "consistent." Otherwise, output "inconsistent."
9.2 EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5
This encoding method is deterministic and only has an encoding
operation.
EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5-ENCODE (M, emLen)
Option:
Hash hash function (hLen denotes the length in octets of the hash
function output)
Input:
M message to be encoded
emLen intended length in octets of the encoded message, at least
tLen + 11, where tLen is the octet length of the DER
encoding T of a certain value computed during the encoding
operation
Output:
EM encoded message, an octet string of length emLen
Errors:
"message too long"; "intended encoded message length too short"
Steps:
1. Apply the hash function to the message M to produce a hash value
H:
H = Hash(M).
If the hash function outputs "message too long," output "message
too long" and stop.
2. Encode the algorithm ID for the hash function and the hash value
into an ASN.1 value of type DigestInfo (see Appendix A.2.4) with
the Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER), where the type DigestInfo
has the syntax
DigestInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
digestAlgorithm AlgorithmIdentifier,
digest OCTET STRING
}
The first field identifies the hash function and the second
contains the hash value. Let T be the DER encoding of the
DigestInfo value (see the notes below) and let tLen be the length
in octets of T.
3. If emLen < tLen + 11, output "intended encoded message length too
short" and stop.
4. Generate an octet string PS consisting of emLen - tLen - 3 octets
with hexadecimal value 0xff. The length of PS will be at least 8
octets.
5. Concatenate PS, the DER encoding T, and other padding to form the
encoded message EM as
EM = 0x00 || 0x01 || PS || 0x00 || T.
6. Output EM.
Notes.
1. For the six hash functions mentioned in Appendix B.1, the DER
encoding T of the DigestInfo value is equal to the following:
MD2: (0x)30 20 30 0c 06 08 2a 86 48 86 f7 0d 02 02 05 00 04
10 || H.
MD5: (0x)30 20 30 0c 06 08 2a 86 48 86 f7 0d 02 05 05 00 04
10 || H.
SHA-1: (0x)30 21 30 09 06 05 2b 0e 03 02 1a 05 00 04 14 || H.
SHA-256: (0x)30 31 30 0d 06 09 60 86 48 01 65 03 04 02 01 05 00
04 20 || H.
SHA-384: (0x)30 41 30 0d 06 09 60 86 48 01 65 03 04 02 02 05 00
04 30 || H.
SHA-512: (0x)30 51 30 0d 06 09 60 86 48 01 65 03 04 02 03 05 00
04 40 || H.
Notes:
The second line of the last example of 'Note 1.' (for SHA-512) is indented too much (by 3 chars).
2. In version 1.5 of this document, T was defined as the BER
encoding, rather than the DER encoding, of the DigestInfo value.
In particular, it is possible - at least in theory - that the
verification operation defined in this document (as well as in
version 2.0) rejects a signature that is valid with respect to the
specification given in PKCS #1 v1.5. This occurs if other rules
than DER are applied to DigestInfo (e.g., an indefinite length
encoding of the underlying SEQUENCE type). While this is unlikely
to be a concern in practice, a cautious implementer may choose to
employ a verification operation based on a BER decoding operation
as specified in PKCS #1 v1.5. In this manner, compatibility with
any valid implementation based on PKCS #1 v1.5 is obtained. Such
a verification operation should indicate whether the underlying
BER encoding is a DER encoding and hence whether the signature is
valid with respect to the specification given in this document.
Appendix A. ASN.1 syntax
A.1 RSA key representation
This section defines ASN.1 object identifiers for RSA public and
private keys, and defines the types RSAPublicKey and RSAPrivateKey.
The intended application of these definitions includes X.509
certificates, PKCS #8 [46], and PKCS #12 [47].
The object identifier rsaEncryption identifies RSA public and private
keys as defined in Appendices A.1.1 and A.1.2. The parameters field
associated with this OID in a value of type AlgorithmIdentifier shall
have a value of type NULL.
rsaEncryption OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pkcs-1 1 }
The definitions in this section have been extended to support multi-
prime RSA, but are backward compatible with previous versions.
A.1.1 RSA public key syntax
An RSA public key should be represented with the ASN.1 type
RSAPublicKey:
RSAPublicKey ::= SEQUENCE {
modulus INTEGER, -- n
publicExponent INTEGER -- e
}
The fields of type RSAPublicKey have the following meanings:
* modulus is the RSA modulus n.
* publicExponent is the RSA public exponent e.
A.1.2 RSA private key syntax
An RSA private key should be represented with the ASN.1 type
RSAPrivateKey:
RSAPrivateKey ::= SEQUENCE {
version Version,
modulus INTEGER, -- n
publicExponent INTEGER, -- e
privateExponent INTEGER, -- d
prime1 INTEGER, -- p
prime2 INTEGER, -- q
exponent1 INTEGER, -- d mod (p-1)
exponent2 INTEGER, -- d mod (q-1)
coefficient INTEGER, -- (inverse of q) mod p
otherPrimeInfos OtherPrimeInfos OPTIONAL
}
The fields of type RSAPrivateKey have the following meanings:
* version is the version number, for compatibility with future
revisions of this document. It shall be 0 for this version of the
document, unless multi-prime is used, in which case it shall be 1.
Version ::= INTEGER { two-prime(0), multi(1) }
(CONSTRAINED BY
{-- version must be multi if otherPrimeInfos present --})
* modulus is the RSA modulus n.
* publicExponent is the RSA public exponent e.
* privateExponent is the RSA private exponent d.
* prime1 is the prime factor p of n.
* prime2 is the prime factor q of n.
* exponent1 is d mod (p - 1).
* exponent2 is d mod (q - 1).
* coefficient is the CRT coefficient q^(-1) mod p.
* otherPrimeInfos contains the information for the additional primes
r_3, ..., r_u, in order. It shall be omitted if version is 0 and
shall contain at least one instance of OtherPrimeInfo if version
is 1.
OtherPrimeInfos ::= SEQUENCE SIZE(1..MAX) OF OtherPrimeInfo
OtherPrimeInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
prime INTEGER, -- ri
exponent INTEGER, -- di
coefficient INTEGER -- ti
}
The fields of type OtherPrimeInfo have the following meanings:
* prime is a prime factor r_i of n, where i >= 3.
* exponent is d_i = d mod (r_i - 1).
* coefficient is the CRT coefficient t_i = (r_1 * r_2 * ... * r_(i-
1))^(-1) mod r_i.
Note. It is important to protect the RSA private key against both
disclosure and modification. Techniques for such protection are
outside the scope of this document. Methods for storing and
distributing private keys and other cryptographic data are described
in PKCS #12 and #15.
A.2 Scheme identification
This section defines object identifiers for the encryption and
signature schemes. The schemes compatible with PKCS #1 v1.5 have the
same definitions as in PKCS #1 v1.5. The intended application of
these definitions includes X.509 certificates and PKCS #7.
Here are type identifier definitions for the PKCS #1 OIDs:
PKCS1Algorithms ALGORITHM-IDENTIFIER ::= {
{ OID rsaEncryption PARAMETERS NULL } |
{ OID md2WithRSAEncryption PARAMETERS NULL } |
{ OID md5WithRSAEncryption PARAMETERS NULL } |
{ OID sha1WithRSAEncryption PARAMETERS NULL } |
{ OID sha256WithRSAEncryption PARAMETERS NULL } |
{ OID sha384WithRSAEncryption PARAMETERS NULL } |
{ OID sha512WithRSAEncryption PARAMETERS NULL } |
{ OID id-RSAES-OAEP PARAMETERS RSAES-OAEP-params } |
PKCS1PSourceAlgorithms |
{ OID id-RSASSA-PSS PARAMETERS RSASSA-PSS-params } ,
... -- Allows for future expansion --
}
A.2.1 RSAES-OAEP
The object identifier id-RSAES-OAEP identifies the RSAES-OAEP
encryption scheme.
id-RSAES-OAEP OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pkcs-1 7 }
The parameters field associated with this OID in a value of type
AlgorithmIdentifier shall have a value of type RSAES-OAEP-params:
RSAES-OAEP-params ::= SEQUENCE {
hashAlgorithm [0] HashAlgorithm DEFAULT sha1,
maskGenAlgorithm [1] MaskGenAlgorithm DEFAULT mgf1SHA1,
pSourceAlgorithm [2] PSourceAlgorithm DEFAULT pSpecifiedEmpty
}
The fields of type RSAES-OAEP-params have the following meanings:
* hashAlgorithm identifies the hash function. It shall be an
algorithm ID with an OID in the set OAEP-PSSDigestAlgorithms.
For a discussion of supported hash functions, see Appendix B.1.
HashAlgorithm ::= AlgorithmIdentifier {
{OAEP-PSSDigestAlgorithms}
}
OAEP-PSSDigestAlgorithms ALGORITHM-IDENTIFIER ::= {
{ OID id-sha1 PARAMETERS NULL }|
{ OID id-sha256 PARAMETERS NULL }|
{ OID id-sha384 PARAMETERS NULL }|
{ OID id-sha512 PARAMETERS NULL },
... -- Allows for future expansion --
}
The default hash function is SHA-1:
sha1 HashAlgorithm ::= {
algorithm id-sha1,
parameters SHA1Parameters : NULL
}
SHA1Parameters ::= NULL
* maskGenAlgorithm identifies the mask generation function. It
shall be an algorithm ID with an OID in the set
PKCS1MGFAlgorithms, which for this version shall consist of
id-mgf1, identifying the MGF1 mask generation function (see
Appendix B.2.1). The parameters field associated with id-mgf1
shall be an algorithm ID with an OID in the set
OAEP-PSSDigestAlgorithms, identifying the hash function on which
MGF1 is based.
MaskGenAlgorithm ::= AlgorithmIdentifier {
{PKCS1MGFAlgorithms}
}
PKCS1MGFAlgorithms ALGORITHM-IDENTIFIER ::= {
{ OID id-mgf1 PARAMETERS HashAlgorithm },
... -- Allows for future expansion --
}
The default mask generation function is MGF1 with SHA-1:
mgf1SHA1 MaskGenAlgorithm ::= {
algorithm id-mgf1,
parameters HashAlgorithm : sha1
}
* pSourceAlgorithm identifies the source (and possibly the value)
of the label L. It shall be an algorithm ID with an OID in the
set PKCS1PSourceAlgorithms, which for this version shall consist
of id-pSpecified, indicating that the label is specified
explicitly. The parameters field associated with id-pSpecified
shall have a value of type OCTET STRING, containing the
label. In previous versions of this specification, the term
"encoding parameters" was used rather than "label", hence the
name of the type below.
PSourceAlgorithm ::= AlgorithmIdentifier {
{PKCS1PSourceAlgorithms}
}
PKCS1PSourceAlgorithms ALGORITHM-IDENTIFIER ::= {
{ OID id-pSpecified PARAMETERS EncodingParameters },
... -- Allows for future expansion --
}
id-pSpecified OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pkcs-1 9 }
EncodingParameters ::= OCTET STRING(SIZE(0..MAX))
The default label is an empty string (so that lHash will contain
the hash of the empty string):
pSpecifiedEmpty PSourceAlgorithm ::= {
algorithm id-pSpecified,
parameters EncodingParameters : emptyString
}
emptyString EncodingParameters ::= ''H
If all of the default values of the fields in RSAES-OAEP-params
are used, then the algorithm identifier will have the following
value:
rSAES-OAEP-Default-Identifier RSAES-AlgorithmIdentifier ::= {
algorithm id-RSAES-OAEP,
parameters RSAES-OAEP-params : {
hashAlgorithm sha1,
maskGenAlgorithm mgf1SHA1,
pSourceAlgorithm pSpecifiedEmpty
}
}
RSAES-AlgorithmIdentifier ::= AlgorithmIdentifier {
{PKCS1Algorithms}
}
A.2.2 RSAES-PKCS1-v1_5
The object identifier rsaEncryption (see Appendix A.1) identifies the
RSAES-PKCS1-v1_5 encryption scheme. The parameters field associated
with this OID in a value of type AlgorithmIdentifier shall have a
value of type NULL. This is the same as in PKCS #1 v1.5.
rsaEncryption OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pkcs-1 1 }
A.2.3 RSASSA-PSS
The object identifier id-RSASSA-PSS identifies the RSASSA-PSS
encryption scheme.
id-RSASSA-PSS OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pkcs-1 10 }
The parameters field associated with this OID in a value of type
AlgorithmIdentifier shall have a value of type RSASSA-PSS-params:
RSASSA-PSS-params ::= SEQUENCE {
hashAlgorithm [0] HashAlgorithm DEFAULT sha1,
maskGenAlgorithm [1] MaskGenAlgorithm DEFAULT mgf1SHA1,
saltLength [2] INTEGER DEFAULT 20,
trailerField [3] TrailerField DEFAULT trailerFieldBC
}
The fields of type RSASSA-PSS-params have the following meanings:
* hashAlgorithm identifies the hash function. It shall be an
algorithm ID with an OID in the set OAEP-PSSDigestAlgorithms (see
Appendix A.2.1). The default hash function is SHA-1.
* maskGenAlgorithm identifies the mask generation function. It
shall be an algorithm ID with an OID in the set
PKCS1MGFAlgorithms (see Appendix A.2.1). The default mask
generation function is MGF1 with SHA-1. For MGF1 (and more
generally, for other mask generation functions based on a hash
EID 635 (Verified) is as follows:Section: A.2.3
Original Text:
* maskGenAlgorithm identifies the mask generation function. It
shall be an algorithm ID with an OID in the set
PKCS1MGFAlgorithms (see Appendix A.2.1). The default mask
generation function is MGF1 with SHA-1. For MGF1 (and more
generally, ...
Corrected Text:
* maskGenAlgorithm identifies the mask generation function. It
shall be an algorithm ID with an OID in the set
PKCS1MGFAlgorithms (see Appendix A.2.1). The default mask
generation function is MGF1 with SHA-1. For MGF1 (and more
generally, ...
Notes:
The bulleted section for 'maskGenAlgorithm' contains an unexpected blank line within the second sentence.
function), it is recommended that the underlying hash function be
the same as the one identified by hashAlgorithm; see Note 2 in
Section 9.1 for further comments.
* saltLength is the octet length of the salt. It shall be an
integer. For a given hashAlgorithm, the default value of
saltLength is the octet length of the hash value. Unlike the
other fields of type RSASSA-PSS-params, saltLength does not need
to be fixed for a given RSA key pair.
* trailerField is the trailer field number, for compatibility with
the draft IEEE P1363a [27]. It shall be 1 for this version of the
document, which represents the trailer field with hexadecimal
value 0xbc. Other trailer fields (including the trailer field
HashID || 0xcc in IEEE P1363a) are not supported in this document.
TrailerField ::= INTEGER { trailerFieldBC(1) }
If the default values of the hashAlgorithm, maskGenAlgorithm, and
trailerField fields of RSASSA-PSS-params are used, then the
algorithm identifier will have the following value:
rSASSA-PSS-Default-Identifier RSASSA-AlgorithmIdentifier ::= {
algorithm id-RSASSA-PSS,
parameters RSASSA-PSS-params : {
hashAlgorithm sha1,
maskGenAlgorithm mgf1SHA1,
saltLength 20,
trailerField trailerFieldBC
}
}
RSASSA-AlgorithmIdentifier ::=
AlgorithmIdentifier { {PKCS1Algorithms} }
Note. In some applications, the hash function underlying a signature
scheme is identified separately from the rest of the operations in
the signature scheme. For instance, in PKCS #7 [45], a hash function
identifier is placed before the message and a "digest encryption"
algorithm identifier (indicating the rest of the operations) is
carried with the signature. In order for PKCS #7 to support the
RSASSA-PSS signature scheme, an object identifier would need to be
defined for the operations in RSASSA-PSS after the hash function
(analogous to the RSAEncryption OID for the RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5
scheme). S/MIME CMS [25] takes a different approach. Although a
hash function identifier is placed before the message, an algorithm
identifier for the full signature scheme may be carried with a CMS
signature (this is done for DSA signatures). Following this
convention, the id-RSASSA-PSS OID can be used to identify RSASSA-PSS
signatures in CMS. Since CMS is considered the successor to PKCS #7
and new developments such as the addition of support for RSASSA-PSS
will be pursued with respect to CMS rather than PKCS #7, an OID for
the "rest of" RSASSA-PSS is not defined in this version of PKCS #1.
A.2.4 RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5
The object identifier for RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 shall be one of the
following. The choice of OID depends on the choice of hash
algorithm: MD2, MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-384, or SHA-512. Note that
if either MD2 or MD5 is used, then the OID is just as in PKCS #1
v1.5. For each OID, the parameters field associated with this OID in
a value of type AlgorithmIdentifier shall have a value of type NULL.
The OID should be chosen in accordance with the following table:
Hash algorithm OID
--------------------------------------------------------
MD2 md2WithRSAEncryption ::= {pkcs-1 2}
MD5 md5WithRSAEncryption ::= {pkcs-1 4}
SHA-1 sha1WithRSAEncryption ::= {pkcs-1 5}
SHA-256 sha256WithRSAEncryption ::= {pkcs-1 11}
SHA-384 sha384WithRSAEncryption ::= {pkcs-1 12}
SHA-512 sha512WithRSAEncryption ::= {pkcs-1 13}
The EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 encoding method includes an ASN.1 value of type
DigestInfo, where the type DigestInfo has the syntax
DigestInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
digestAlgorithm DigestAlgorithm,
digest OCTET STRING
}
digestAlgorithm identifies the hash function and shall be an
algorithm ID with an OID in the set PKCS1-v1-5DigestAlgorithms. For
a discussion of supported hash functions, see Appendix B.1.
DigestAlgorithm ::=
AlgorithmIdentifier { {PKCS1-v1-5DigestAlgorithms} }
PKCS1-v1-5DigestAlgorithms ALGORITHM-IDENTIFIER ::= {
{ OID id-md2 PARAMETERS NULL }|
{ OID id-md5 PARAMETERS NULL }|
{ OID id-sha1 PARAMETERS NULL }|
{ OID id-sha256 PARAMETERS NULL }|
{ OID id-sha384 PARAMETERS NULL }|
{ OID id-sha512 PARAMETERS NULL }
}
Appendix B. Supporting techniques
This section gives several examples of underlying functions
supporting the encryption schemes in Section 7 and the encoding
methods in Section 9. A range of techniques is given here to allow
compatibility with existing applications as well as migration to new
techniques. While these supporting techniques are appropriate for
applications to implement, none of them is required to be
implemented. It is expected that profiles for PKCS #1 v2.1 will be
developed that specify particular supporting techniques.
This section also gives object identifiers for the supporting
techniques.
B.1 Hash functions
Hash functions are used in the operations contained in Sections 7 and
9. Hash functions are deterministic, meaning that the output is
completely determined by the input. Hash functions take octet
strings of variable length, and generate fixed length octet strings.
The hash functions used in the operations contained in Sections 7 and
9 should generally be collision-resistant. This means that it is
infeasible to find two distinct inputs to the hash function that
produce the same output. A collision-resistant hash function also
has the desirable property of being one-way; this means that given an
output, it is infeasible to find an input whose hash is the specified
output. In addition to the requirements, the hash function should
yield a mask generation function (Appendix B.2) with pseudorandom
output.
Six hash functions are given as examples for the encoding methods
in this document: MD2 [33], MD5 [41], and the algorithms SHA-1,
SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512 [38']. For the RSAES-OAEP
EID 636 (Verified) is as follows:Section: B.1
Original Text:
Six hash functions are given as examples for the encoding methods
in this document: MD2 [33], MD5 [41], SHA-1 [38], and the
proposed algorithms SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512 [39].
Corrected Text:
Six hash functions are given as examples for the encoding methods
in this document: MD2 [33], MD5 [41], and the algorithms SHA-1,
SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512 [38'].
Notes:
RFC 3447 has been published on Feb 04, 2003 (according to the time stamp of rfc3447.txt on <ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/>).
The new "Secure Hash Standard", FIPS Pub 180-2 had been published on "2002 August 1" and became "effective on February 1, 2003" as specified on page ii of FIPS 180-2, "9. Implementation Schedule".
Both events predate the publishing date of RFC 3447.
Therefore, the first sentence of the second paragraph on page 53 should be as noted above.
encryption scheme and EMSA-PSS encoding method, only SHA-1 and SHA-
256/384/512 are recommended. For the EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 encoding
method, SHA-1 or SHA-256/384/512 are recommended for new
applications. MD2 and MD5 are recommended only for compatibility
with existing applications based on PKCS #1 v1.5.
The object identifiers id-md2, id-md5, id-sha1, id-sha256, id-sha384,
and id-sha512, identify the respective hash functions:
id-md2 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549)
digestAlgorithm(2) 2
}
id-md5 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549)
digestAlgorithm(2) 5
}
id-sha1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
iso(1) identified-organization(3) oiw(14) secsig(3)
algorithms(2) 26
}
id-sha256 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
joint-iso-itu-t(2) country(16) us(840) organization(1)
gov(101) csor(3) nistalgorithm(4) hashalgs(2) 1
}
id-sha384 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
joint-iso-itu-t(2) country(16) us(840) organization(1)
gov(101) csor(3) nistalgorithm(4) hashalgs(2) 2
}
id-sha512 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
joint-iso-itu-t(2) country(16) us(840) organization(1)
gov(101) csor(3) nistalgorithm(4) hashalgs(2) 3
}
The parameters field associated with id-md2 and id-md5 in a value of
type AlgorithmIdentifier shall have a value of type NULL.
The parameters field associated with id-sha1, id-sha256, id-sha384,
and id-sha512 should be omitted, but if present, shall have a value
of type NULL.
Note. Version 1.5 of PKCS #1 also allowed for the use of MD4 in
signature schemes. The cryptanalysis of MD4 has progressed
significantly in the intervening years. For example, Dobbertin [18]
demonstrated how to find collisions for MD4 and that the first two
rounds of MD4 are not one-way [20]. Because of these results and
others (e.g., [8]), MD4 is no longer recommended. There have also
been advances in the cryptanalysis of MD2 and MD5, although not
enough to warrant removal from existing applications. Rogier and
Chauvaud [43] demonstrated how to find collisions in a modified
version of MD2. No one has demonstrated how to find collisions for
the full MD5 algorithm, although partial results have been found
(e.g., [9][19]).
To address these concerns, SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-384, or SHA-512 are
recommended for new applications. As of today, the best (known)
collision attacks against these hash functions are generic attacks
with complexity 2^(L/2), where L is the bit length of the hash
output. For the signature schemes in this document, a collision
attack is easily translated into a signature forgery. Therefore, the
value L / 2 should be at least equal to the desired security level in
bits of the signature scheme (a security level of B bits means that
the best attack has complexity 2^B). The same rule of thumb can be
applied to RSAES-OAEP; it is recommended that the bit length of the
seed (which is equal to the bit length of the hash output) be twice
the desired security level in bits.
B.2 Mask generation functions
A mask generation function takes an octet string of variable length
and a desired output length as input, and outputs an octet string of
the desired length. There may be restrictions on the length of the
input and output octet strings, but such bounds are generally very
large. Mask generation functions are deterministic; the octet string
output is completely determined by the input octet string. The
output of a mask generation function should be pseudorandom: Given
one part of the output but not the input, it should be infeasible to
predict another part of the output. The provable security of RSAES-
OAEP and RSASSA-PSS relies on the random nature of the output of the
mask generation function, which in turn relies on the random nature
of the underlying hash.
One mask generation function is given here: MGF1, which is based on a
hash function. MGF1 coincides with the mask generation functions
defined in IEEE Std 1363-2000 [26] and the draft ANSI X9.44 [1].
Future versions of this document may define other mask generation
functions.
B.2.1 MGF1
MGF1 is a Mask Generation Function based on a hash function.
MGF1 (mgfSeed, maskLen)
Options:
Hash hash function (hLen denotes the length in octets of the hash
function output)
Input:
mgfSeed seed from which mask is generated, an octet string
maskLen intended length in octets of the mask, at most 2^32 hLen
Output:
mask mask, an octet string of length maskLen
Error: "mask too long"
Steps:
1. If maskLen > 2^32 hLen, output "mask too long" and stop.
2. Let T be the empty octet string.
3. For counter from 0 to \ceil (maskLen / hLen) - 1, do the
following:
a. Convert counter to an octet string C of length 4 octets (see
Section 4.1):
C = I2OSP (counter, 4) .
b. Concatenate the hash of the seed mgfSeed and C to the octet
string T:
T = T || Hash(mgfSeed || C) .
4. Output the leading maskLen octets of T as the octet string mask.
The object identifier id-mgf1 identifies the MGF1 mask generation
function:
id-mgf1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pkcs-1 8 }
The parameters field associated with this OID in a value of type
AlgorithmIdentifier shall have a value of type hashAlgorithm,
identifying the hash function on which MGF1 is based.
Appendix C. ASN.1 module
PKCS-1 {
iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-1(1)
modules(0) pkcs-1(1)
}
-- $ Revision: 2.1r1 $
-- This module has been checked for conformance with the ASN.1
-- standard by the OSS ASN.1 Tools
DEFINITIONS EXPLICIT TAGS ::=
BEGIN
-- EXPORTS ALL
-- All types and values defined in this module are exported for use
-- in other ASN.1 modules.
IMPORTS
id-sha256, id-sha384, id-sha512
FROM NIST-SHA2 {
joint-iso-itu-t(2) country(16) us(840) organization(1)
gov(101) csor(3) nistalgorithm(4) modules(0) sha2(1)
};
-- ============================
-- Basic object identifiers
-- ============================
-- The DER encoding of this in hexadecimal is:
-- (0x)06 08
-- 2A 86 48 86 F7 0D 01 01
--
pkcs-1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) 1
}
--
-- When rsaEncryption is used in an AlgorithmIdentifier the
-- parameters MUST be present and MUST be NULL.
--
rsaEncryption OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pkcs-1 1 }
--
-- When id-RSAES-OAEP is used in an AlgorithmIdentifier the
-- parameters MUST be present and MUST be RSAES-OAEP-params.
--
id-RSAES-OAEP OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pkcs-1 7 }
--
-- When id-pSpecified is used in an AlgorithmIdentifier the
-- parameters MUST be an OCTET STRING.
--
id-pSpecified OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pkcs-1 9 }
-- When id-RSASSA-PSS is used in an AlgorithmIdentifier the
-- parameters MUST be present and MUST be RSASSA-PSS-params.
--
id-RSASSA-PSS OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pkcs-1 10 }
--
-- When the following OIDs are used in an AlgorithmIdentifier the
-- parameters MUST be present and MUST be NULL.
--
md2WithRSAEncryption OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pkcs-1 2 }
md5WithRSAEncryption OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pkcs-1 4 }
sha1WithRSAEncryption OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pkcs-1 5 }
sha256WithRSAEncryption OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pkcs-1 11 }
sha384WithRSAEncryption OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pkcs-1 12 }
sha512WithRSAEncryption OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pkcs-1 13 }
--
-- This OID really belongs in a module with the secsig OIDs.
--
id-sha1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
iso(1) identified-organization(3) oiw(14) secsig(3)
algorithms(2) 26
}
--
-- OIDs for MD2 and MD5, allowed only in EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5.
--
id-md2 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) digestAlgorithm(2) 2
}
id-md5 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) digestAlgorithm(2) 5
}
--
-- When id-mgf1 is used in an AlgorithmIdentifier the parameters MUST
-- be present and MUST be a HashAlgorithm, for example sha1.
--
id-mgf1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { pkcs-1 8 }
-- ================
-- Useful types
-- ================
ALGORITHM-IDENTIFIER ::= CLASS {
&id OBJECT IDENTIFIER UNIQUE,
&Type OPTIONAL
}
WITH SYNTAX { OID &id [PARAMETERS &Type] }
--
-- Note: the parameter InfoObjectSet in the following definitions
-- allows a distinct information object set to be specified for sets
-- of algorithms such as:
-- DigestAlgorithms ALGORITHM-IDENTIFIER ::= {
-- { OID id-md2 PARAMETERS NULL }|
-- { OID id-md5 PARAMETERS NULL }|
-- { OID id-sha1 PARAMETERS NULL }
-- }
--
AlgorithmIdentifier { ALGORITHM-IDENTIFIER:InfoObjectSet } ::=
SEQUENCE {
algorithm ALGORITHM-IDENTIFIER.&id({InfoObjectSet}),
parameters
ALGORITHM-IDENTIFIER.&Type({InfoObjectSet}{@.algorithm})
OPTIONAL
}
-- ==============
-- Algorithms
-- ==============
--
-- Allowed EME-OAEP and EMSA-PSS digest algorithms.
--
OAEP-PSSDigestAlgorithms ALGORITHM-IDENTIFIER ::= {
{ OID id-sha1 PARAMETERS NULL }|
{ OID id-sha256 PARAMETERS NULL }|
{ OID id-sha384 PARAMETERS NULL }|
{ OID id-sha512 PARAMETERS NULL },
... -- Allows for future expansion --
}
--
-- Allowed EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 digest algorithms.
--
PKCS1-v1-5DigestAlgorithms ALGORITHM-IDENTIFIER ::= {
{ OID id-md2 PARAMETERS NULL }|
{ OID id-md5 PARAMETERS NULL }|
{ OID id-sha1 PARAMETERS NULL }|
{ OID id-sha256 PARAMETERS NULL }|
{ OID id-sha384 PARAMETERS NULL }|
{ OID id-sha512 PARAMETERS NULL }
}
-- When id-md2 and id-md5 are used in an AlgorithmIdentifier the
-- parameters MUST be present and MUST be NULL.
-- When id-sha1, id-sha256, id-sha384 and id-sha512 are used in an
-- AlgorithmIdentifier the parameters (which are optional) SHOULD
-- be omitted. However, an implementation MUST also accept
-- AlgorithmIdentifier values where the parameters are NULL.
sha1 HashAlgorithm ::= {
algorithm id-sha1,
parameters SHA1Parameters : NULL -- included for compatibility
-- with existing implementations
}
HashAlgorithm ::= AlgorithmIdentifier { {OAEP-PSSDigestAlgorithms} }
SHA1Parameters ::= NULL
--
-- Allowed mask generation function algorithms.
-- If the identifier is id-mgf1, the parameters are a HashAlgorithm.
--
PKCS1MGFAlgorithms ALGORITHM-IDENTIFIER ::= {
{ OID id-mgf1 PARAMETERS HashAlgorithm },
... -- Allows for future expansion --
}
--
-- Default AlgorithmIdentifier for id-RSAES-OAEP.maskGenAlgorithm and
-- id-RSASSA-PSS.maskGenAlgorithm.
--
mgf1SHA1 MaskGenAlgorithm ::= {
algorithm id-mgf1,
parameters HashAlgorithm : sha1
}
MaskGenAlgorithm ::= AlgorithmIdentifier { {PKCS1MGFAlgorithms} }
--
-- Allowed algorithms for pSourceAlgorithm.
--
PKCS1PSourceAlgorithms ALGORITHM-IDENTIFIER ::= {
{ OID id-pSpecified PARAMETERS EncodingParameters },
... -- Allows for future expansion --
}
EncodingParameters ::= OCTET STRING(SIZE(0..MAX))
--
-- This identifier means that the label L is an empty string, so the
-- digest of the empty string appears in the RSA block before
-- masking.
--
pSpecifiedEmpty PSourceAlgorithm ::= {
algorithm id-pSpecified,
parameters EncodingParameters : emptyString
}
PSourceAlgorithm ::= AlgorithmIdentifier { {PKCS1PSourceAlgorithms} }
emptyString EncodingParameters ::= ''H
--
-- Type identifier definitions for the PKCS #1 OIDs.
--
PKCS1Algorithms ALGORITHM-IDENTIFIER ::= {
{ OID rsaEncryption PARAMETERS NULL } |
{ OID md2WithRSAEncryption PARAMETERS NULL } |
{ OID md5WithRSAEncryption PARAMETERS NULL } |
{ OID sha1WithRSAEncryption PARAMETERS NULL } |
{ OID sha256WithRSAEncryption PARAMETERS NULL } |
{ OID sha384WithRSAEncryption PARAMETERS NULL } |
{ OID sha512WithRSAEncryption PARAMETERS NULL } |
{ OID id-RSAES-OAEP PARAMETERS RSAES-OAEP-params } |
PKCS1PSourceAlgorithms |
{ OID id-RSASSA-PSS PARAMETERS RSASSA-PSS-params } ,
... -- Allows for future expansion --
}
-- ===================
-- Main structures
-- ===================
RSAPublicKey ::= SEQUENCE {
modulus INTEGER, -- n
publicExponent INTEGER -- e
}
--
-- Representation of RSA private key with information for the CRT
-- algorithm.
--
RSAPrivateKey ::= SEQUENCE {
version Version,
modulus INTEGER, -- n
publicExponent INTEGER, -- e
privateExponent INTEGER, -- d
prime1 INTEGER, -- p
prime2 INTEGER, -- q
exponent1 INTEGER, -- d mod (p-1)
exponent2 INTEGER, -- d mod (q-1)
coefficient INTEGER, -- (inverse of q) mod p
otherPrimeInfos OtherPrimeInfos OPTIONAL
}
Version ::= INTEGER { two-prime(0), multi(1) }
(CONSTRAINED BY {
-- version must be multi if otherPrimeInfos present --
})
OtherPrimeInfos ::= SEQUENCE SIZE(1..MAX) OF OtherPrimeInfo
OtherPrimeInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
prime INTEGER, -- ri
exponent INTEGER, -- di
coefficient INTEGER -- ti
}
--
-- AlgorithmIdentifier.parameters for id-RSAES-OAEP.
-- Note that the tags in this Sequence are explicit.
--
RSAES-OAEP-params ::= SEQUENCE {
hashAlgorithm [0] HashAlgorithm DEFAULT sha1,
maskGenAlgorithm [1] MaskGenAlgorithm DEFAULT mgf1SHA1,
pSourceAlgorithm [2] PSourceAlgorithm DEFAULT pSpecifiedEmpty
}
--
-- Identifier for default RSAES-OAEP algorithm identifier.
-- The DER Encoding of this is in hexadecimal:
-- (0x)30 0D
-- 06 09
-- 2A 86 48 86 F7 0D 01 01 07
-- 30 00
-- Notice that the DER encoding of default values is "empty".
--
rSAES-OAEP-Default-Identifier RSAES-AlgorithmIdentifier ::= {
algorithm id-RSAES-OAEP,
parameters RSAES-OAEP-params : {
hashAlgorithm sha1,
maskGenAlgorithm mgf1SHA1,
pSourceAlgorithm pSpecifiedEmpty
}
}
RSAES-AlgorithmIdentifier ::=
AlgorithmIdentifier { {PKCS1Algorithms} }
--
-- AlgorithmIdentifier.parameters for id-RSASSA-PSS.
-- Note that the tags in this Sequence are explicit.
--
RSASSA-PSS-params ::= SEQUENCE {
hashAlgorithm [0] HashAlgorithm DEFAULT sha1,
maskGenAlgorithm [1] MaskGenAlgorithm DEFAULT mgf1SHA1,
saltLength [2] INTEGER DEFAULT 20,
trailerField [3] TrailerField DEFAULT trailerFieldBC
}
TrailerField ::= INTEGER { trailerFieldBC(1) }
--
-- Identifier for default RSASSA-PSS algorithm identifier
-- The DER Encoding of this is in hexadecimal:
-- (0x)30 0D
-- 06 09
-- 2A 86 48 86 F7 0D 01 01 0A
-- 30 00
-- Notice that the DER encoding of default values is "empty".
--
rSASSA-PSS-Default-Identifier RSASSA-AlgorithmIdentifier ::= {
algorithm id-RSASSA-PSS,
parameters RSASSA-PSS-params : {
hashAlgorithm sha1,
maskGenAlgorithm mgf1SHA1,
saltLength 20,
trailerField trailerFieldBC
}
}
RSASSA-AlgorithmIdentifier ::=
AlgorithmIdentifier { {PKCS1Algorithms} }
--
-- Syntax for the EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 hash identifier.
--
DigestInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
digestAlgorithm DigestAlgorithm,
digest OCTET STRING
}
DigestAlgorithm ::=
AlgorithmIdentifier { {PKCS1-v1-5DigestAlgorithms} }
END -- PKCS1Definitions
Appendix D. Intellectual Property Considerations
The RSA public-key cryptosystem is described in U.S. Patent
4,405,829, which expired on September 20, 2000. RSA Security Inc.
makes no other patent claims on the constructions described in this
document, although specific underlying techniques may be covered.
Multi-prime RSA is described in U.S. Patent 5,848,159.
The University of California has indicated that it has a patent
pending on the PSS signature scheme [5]. It has also provided a
letter to the IEEE P1363 working group stating that if the PSS
signature scheme is included in an IEEE standard, "the University of
California will, when that standard is adopted, FREELY license any
conforming implementation of PSS as a technique for achieving a
digital signature with appendix" [23]. The PSS signature scheme is
specified in the IEEE P1363a draft [27], which was in ballot
resolution when this document was published.
License to copy this document is granted provided that it is
identified as "RSA Security Inc. Public-Key Cryptography Standards
(PKCS)" in all material mentioning or referencing this document.
RSA Security Inc. makes no other representations regarding
intellectual property claims by other parties. Such determination is
the responsibility of the user.
Appendix E. Revision history
Versions 1.0 - 1.3
Versions 1.0 - 1.3 were distributed to participants in RSA Data
Security, Inc.'s Public-Key Cryptography Standards meetings in
February and March 1991.
Version 1.4
Version 1.4 was part of the June 3, 1991 initial public release of
PKCS. Version 1.4 was published as NIST/OSI Implementors'
Workshop document SEC-SIG-91-18.
Version 1.5
Version 1.5 incorporated several editorial changes, including
updates to the references and the addition of a revision history.
The following substantive changes were made:
- Section 10: "MD4 with RSA" signature and verification processes
were added.
- Section 11: md4WithRSAEncryption object identifier was added.
Version 1.5 was republished as IETF RFC 2313.
Version 2.0
Version 2.0 incorporated major editorial changes in terms of the
document structure and introduced the RSAES-OAEP encryption
scheme. This version continued to support the encryption and
signature processes in version 1.5, although the hash algorithm
MD4 was no longer allowed due to cryptanalytic advances in the
intervening years. Version 2.0 was republished as IETF RFC 2437
[35].
Version 2.1
Version 2.1 introduces multi-prime RSA and the RSASSA-PSS
signature scheme with appendix along with several editorial
improvements. This version continues to support the schemes in
version 2.0.
Appendix F: References
[1] ANSI X9F1 Working Group. ANSI X9.44 Draft D2: Key
Establishment Using Integer Factorization Cryptography.
Working Draft, March 2002.
[2] M. Bellare, A. Desai, D. Pointcheval and P. Rogaway. Relations
Among Notions of Security for Public-Key Encryption Schemes.
In H. Krawczyk, editor, Advances in Cryptology - Crypto '98,
volume 1462 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 26 - 45.
Springer Verlag, 1998.
[3] M. Bellare and P. Rogaway. Optimal Asymmetric Encryption - How
to Encrypt with RSA. In A. De Santis, editor, Advances in
Cryptology - Eurocrypt '94, volume 950 of Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, pp. 92 - 111. Springer Verlag, 1995.
[4] M. Bellare and P. Rogaway. The Exact Security of Digital
Signatures - How to Sign with RSA and Rabin. In U. Maurer,
editor, Advances in Cryptology - Eurocrypt '96, volume 1070 of
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 399 - 416. Springer
Verlag, 1996.
[5] M. Bellare and P. Rogaway. PSS: Provably Secure Encoding
Method for Digital Signatures. Submission to IEEE P1363
working group, August 1998. Available from
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1363/.
[6] D. Bleichenbacher. Chosen Ciphertext Attacks Against Protocols
Based on the RSA Encryption Standard PKCS #1. In H. Krawczyk,
editor, Advances in Cryptology - Crypto '98, volume 1462 of
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 1 - 12. Springer
Verlag, 1998.
[7] D. Bleichenbacher, B. Kaliski and J. Staddon. Recent Results
on PKCS #1: RSA Encryption Standard. RSA Laboratories'
Bulletin No. 7, June 1998.
[8] B. den Boer and A. Bosselaers. An Attack on the Last Two
Rounds of MD4. In J. Feigenbaum, editor, Advances in
Cryptology - Crypto '91, volume 576 of Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, pp. 194 - 203. Springer Verlag, 1992.
[9] B. den Boer and A. Bosselaers. Collisions for the Compression
Function of MD5. In T. Helleseth, editor, Advances in
Cryptology - Eurocrypt '93, volume 765 of Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, pp. 293 - 304. Springer Verlag, 1994.
[10] D. Coppersmith, M. Franklin, J. Patarin and M. Reiter. Low-
Exponent RSA with Related Messages. In U. Maurer, editor,
Advances in Cryptology - Eurocrypt '96, volume 1070 of Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, pp. 1 - 9. Springer Verlag, 1996.
[11] D. Coppersmith, S. Halevi and C. Jutla. ISO 9796-1 and the New
Forgery Strategy. Presented at the rump session of Crypto '99,
August 1999.
[12] J.-S. Coron. On the Exact Security of Full Domain Hashing. In
M. Bellare, editor, Advances in Cryptology - Crypto 2000,
volume 1880 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 229 -
235. Springer Verlag, 2000.
[13] J.-S. Coron. Optimal Security Proofs for PSS and Other
Signature Schemes. In L. Knudsen, editor, Advances in
Cryptology - Eurocrypt 2002, volume 2332 of Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, pp. 272 - 287. Springer Verlag, 2002.
[14] J.-S. Coron, M. Joye, D. Naccache and P. Paillier. New Attacks
on PKCS #1 v1.5 Encryption. In B. Preneel, editor, Advances in
Cryptology - Eurocrypt 2000, volume 1807 of Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, pp. 369 - 379. Springer Verlag, 2000.
[15] J.-S. Coron, D. Naccache and J. P. Stern. On the Security of
RSA Padding. In M. Wiener, editor, Advances in Cryptology -
Crypto '99, volume 1666 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
pp. 1 - 18. Springer Verlag, 1999.
[16] Y. Desmedt and A.M. Odlyzko. A Chosen Text Attack on the RSA
Cryptosystem and Some Discrete Logarithm Schemes. In H.C.
Williams, editor, Advances in Cryptology - Crypto '85, volume
218 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 516 - 522.
Springer Verlag, 1986.
[17] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol, Version 1.0", RFC
2246, January 1999.
[18] H. Dobbertin. Cryptanalysis of MD4. In D. Gollmann, editor,
Fast Software Encryption '96, volume 1039 of Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, pp. 55 - 72. Springer Verlag, 1996.
[19] H. Dobbertin. Cryptanalysis of MD5 Compress. Presented at the
rump session of Eurocrypt '96, May 1996.
[20] H. Dobbertin. The First Two Rounds of MD4 are Not One-Way. In
S. Vaudenay, editor, Fast Software Encryption '98, volume 1372
in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 284 - 292. Springer
Verlag, 1998.
[21] E. Fujisaki, T. Okamoto, D. Pointcheval and J. Stern. RSA-OAEP
is Secure under the RSA Assumption. In J. Kilian, editor,
Advances in Cryptology - Crypto 2001, volume 2139 of Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, pp. 260 - 274. Springer Verlag,
2001.
[22] H. Garner. The Residue Number System. IRE Transactions on
Electronic Computers, EC-8 (6), pp. 140 - 147, June 1959.
[23] M.L. Grell. Re: Encoding Methods PSS/PSS-R. Letter to IEEE
P1363 working group, University of California, June 15, 1999.
Available from
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1363/P1363/patents.html.
[24] J. Haastad. Solving Simultaneous Modular Equations of Low
Degree. SIAM Journal of Computing, volume 17, pp. 336 - 341,
1988.
[25] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC 3369,
August 2002. Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
Algorithms", RFC 3370, August 2002.
[26] IEEE Std 1363-2000: Standard Specifications for Public Key
Cryptography. IEEE, August 2000.
[27] IEEE P1363 working group. IEEE P1363a D11: Draft Standard
Specifications for Public Key Cryptography -- Amendment 1:
Additional Techniques. December 16, 2002. Available from
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1363/.
[28] ISO/IEC 9594-8:1997: Information technology - Open Systems
Interconnection - The Directory: Authentication Framework.
1997.
[29] ISO/IEC FDIS 9796-2: Information Technology - Security
Techniques - Digital Signature Schemes Giving Message Recovery
- Part 2: Integer Factorization Based Mechanisms. Final Draft
International Standard, December 2001.
[30] ISO/IEC 18033-2: Information Technology - Security Techniques -
Encryption Algorithms - Part 2: Asymmetric Ciphers. V. Shoup,
editor, Text for 2nd Working Draft, January 2002.
[31] J. Jonsson. Security Proof for the RSA-PSS Signature Scheme
(extended abstract). Second Open NESSIE Workshop. September
2001. Full version available from
http://eprint.iacr.org/2001/053/.
[32] J. Jonsson and B. Kaliski. On the Security of RSA Encryption
in TLS. In M. Yung, editor, Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO
2002, vol. 2442 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 127 -
142. Springer Verlag, 2002.
[33] Kaliski, B., "The MD2 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1319,
April 1992.
[34] B. Kaliski. On Hash Function Identification in Signature
Schemes. In B. Preneel, editor, RSA Conference 2002,
Cryptographers' Track, volume 2271 of Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, pp. 1 - 16. Springer Verlag, 2002.
[35] Kaliski, B. and J. Staddon, "PKCS #1: RSA Cryptography
Specifications Version 2.0", RFC 2437, October 1998.
[36] J. Manger. A Chosen Ciphertext Attack on RSA Optimal
Asymmetric Encryption Padding (OAEP) as Standardized in PKCS #1
v2.0. In J. Kilian, editor, Advances in Cryptology - Crypto
2001, volume 2139 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 260
- 274. Springer Verlag, 2001.
[37] A. Menezes, P. van Oorschot and S. Vanstone. Handbook of
Applied Cryptography. CRC Press, 1996.
[38] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
FIPS Publication 180-2: Secure Hash Standard. August
2002.
EID 638 (Verified) is as follows:Section: F
Original Text:
[38] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
FIPS Publication 180-1: Secure Hash Standard. April 1994.
[39] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Draft FIPS 180-2: Secure Hash Standard. Draft, May 2001.
Available from http://www.nist.gov/sha/.
Corrected Text:
[38] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
FIPS Publication 180-2: Secure Hash Standard. August
2002.
Notes:
RFC 3447 has been published on Feb 04, 2003 (according to the time stamp of rfc3447.txt on <ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/>).
The new "Secure Hash Standard", FIPS Pub 180-2 had been published on "2002 August 1" and became "effective on February 1, 2003" as specified on page ii of FIPS 180-2, "9. Implementation Schedule".
Both events predate the publishing date of RFC 3447.
The reference should be updated as noted above.
[40] J.-J. Quisquater and C. Couvreur. Fast Decipherment Algorithm
for RSA Public-Key Cryptosystem. Electronics Letters, 18 (21),
pp. 905 - 907, October 1982.
[41] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321, April
1992.
[42] R. Rivest, A. Shamir and L. Adleman. A Method for Obtaining
Digital Signatures and Public-Key Cryptosystems.
Communications of the ACM, 21 (2), pp. 120-126, February 1978.
[43] N. Rogier and P. Chauvaud. The Compression Function of MD2 is
not Collision Free. Presented at Selected Areas of
Cryptography '95. Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. May
1995.
[44] RSA Laboratories. PKCS #1 v2.0: RSA Encryption Standard.
October 1998.
[45] RSA Laboratories. PKCS #7 v1.5: Cryptographic Message Syntax
Standard. November 1993. (Republished as IETF RFC 2315.)
[46] RSA Laboratories. PKCS #8 v1.2: Private-Key Information Syntax
Standard. November 1993.
[47] RSA Laboratories. PKCS #12 v1.0: Personal Information Exchange
Syntax Standard. June 1999.
[48] V. Shoup. OAEP Reconsidered. In J. Kilian, editor, Advances
in Cryptology - Crypto 2001, volume 2139 of Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, pp. 239 - 259. Springer Verlag, 2001.
[49] R. D. Silverman. A Cost-Based Security Analysis of Symmetric
and Asymmetric Key Lengths. RSA Laboratories Bulletin No. 13,
April 2000. Available from
http://www.rsasecurity.com.rsalabs/bulletins/.
[50] G. J. Simmons. Subliminal communication is easy using the DSA.
In T. Helleseth, editor, Advances in Cryptology - Eurocrypt
'93, volume 765 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 218-
232. Springer-Verlag, 1993.
Appendix G: About PKCS
The Public-Key Cryptography Standards are specifications produced by
RSA Laboratories in cooperation with secure systems developers
worldwide for the purpose of accelerating the deployment of
public-key cryptography. First published in 1991 as a result of
meetings with a small group of early adopters of public-key
technology, the PKCS documents have become widely referenced and
implemented. Contributions from the PKCS series have become part of
many formal and de facto standards, including ANSI X9 and IEEE P1363
documents, PKIX, SET, S/MIME, SSL/TLS, and WAP/WTLS.
Further development of PKCS occurs through mailing list discussions
and occasional workshops, and suggestions for improvement are
welcome. For more information, contact:
PKCS Editor
RSA Laboratories
174 Middlesex Turnpike
Bedford, MA 01730 USA
pkcs-editor@rsasecurity.com
http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/pkcs
Appendix H: Corrections Made During RFC Publication Process
The following corrections were made in converting the PKCS #1 v2.1
document to this RFC:
* The requirement that the parameters in an AlgorithmIdentifier
value for id-sha1, id-sha256, id-sha384, and id-sha512 be NULL was
changed to a recommendation that the parameters be omitted (while
still allowing the parameters to be NULL). This is to align with
the definitions originally promulgated by NIST. Implementations
MUST accept AlgorithmIdentifier values both without parameters and
with NULL parameters.
* The notes after RSADP and RSASP1 (Secs. 5.1.2 and 5.2.1) were
corrected to refer to step 2.b rather than 2.a.
* References [25], [27] and [32] were updated to reflect new
publication data.
These corrections will be reflected in future editions of PKCS #1
v2.1.
Security Considerations
Security issues are discussed throughout this memo.
Acknowledgements
This document is based on a contribution of RSA Laboratories, the
research center of RSA Security Inc. Any substantial use of the text
from this document must acknowledge RSA Security Inc. RSA Security
Inc. requests that all material mentioning or referencing this
document identify this as "RSA Security Inc. PKCS #1 v2.1".
Authors' Addresses
Jakob Jonsson
Philipps-Universitaet Marburg
Fachbereich Mathematik und Informatik
Hans Meerwein Strasse, Lahnberge
DE-35032 Marburg
Germany
Phone: +49 6421 28 25672
EMail: jonsson@mathematik.uni-marburg.de
Burt Kaliski
RSA Laboratories
174 Middlesex Turnpike
Bedford, MA 01730 USA
Phone: +1 781 515 7073
EMail: bkaliski@rsasecurity.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society 2003. All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
are included on all such copies. However, this document itself may
not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice
or references to the Internet Society or other Internet
organizations, except as required to translate it into languages
other than English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.