Re: signature woes and reconciliation, examples appreciated2003-08-08 08:47:05
Adding "...in the same hash context" would probably be enough, as hash
contexts are explained in the key stretching section. Of course, adding
pseudocode would not hurt.
"Hal Finney"
<hal(_at_)finney(_dot_)org> To:
ietf-openpgp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org, poiboy(_at_)SAFe-mail(_dot_)net
Sent by: cc:
owner-ietf-openpgp(_at_)m Subject: Re: signature
woes and reconciliation, examples appreciated
ail.imc.org
07/31/2003 07:15 PM
From: poiboy(_at_)SAFe-mail(_dot_)net I recently ran into trouble trying to calculate the hash needed to verify a GnuPG (1.2.2) v3 DSA one-pass signature with my pet Python hopeful-implementation-to-be. I've had someone else run into the same problem interpreting this part of the spec. The language about "first you hash this, then you hash that, then you hash this other thing" seems very natural to me (I wrote much of it after all), working with a programming interface where you pass data incrementally into a hash context object. But other people interpret it as you did, that you produce a hash of the first part, then a hash of the second part, then a hash of the third part, and somehow combine these hashes together to get the final signature. Hal Finney
|
|
||||||||||||||||