Yes that is true, however what we have is a set of common code in our
CryptoAPI. The code to decode a signed data object is one of these
common code functions. Thus we use the same code for both S/MIME
messages and other structures which are wrapped up in signedData code.
It does not make any sense internally for us to try and force users to
decide if they are using PKCS #7 signedData or CMS signedData objects.
This is even more true as we go forward and CMS gets adopted by even
more of the IETF standards. (We can hope.)
jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Blake Ramsdell [mailto:BlakeR(_at_)deming(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 8:35 PM
To: Jim Schaad (Exchange); 'Ietf-Smime (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: Hashing of CMS signedData objects
On Wednesday, January 28, 1998 1:21 PM, Jim Schaad (Exchange)
[SMTP:jimsch(_at_)EXCHANGE(_dot_)MICROSOFT(_dot_)com] wrote:
When we had the discussions in San Fransico at the RSA conference, one
of the questions that was raised about changing the what data and how
the data was encoded was if there was any material currently out in
the
real world which was signed in the PKCS #7 way rather than the new
proposed CMS way. At the time I said that I know of none. I have
since
been informed that MIcrosoft actually does have some objects signed
and
encoded in this manner, and they have actually been released into the
real world.
Isn't this only a concern if the PKCS #7 SignedData use in question is
being used in an S/MIME context?
Blake
--
Blake C. Ramsdell
Worldtalk Corporation
For current info, check http://www.deming.com/users/blaker
Voice +1 425 882 8861 x103 Fax +1 425 882 8060