Baltimore has two implementations. The old implementation,
SMT, ignores the version number and will fail if it gets
anything that falls outside the PKCS#7 spec.
The newer implementation, KeyTools S/MIME, pays attention
to the version number and won't process the message unless
it understands it. It's debatable - and I suppose that's
what this is about - whether this is a better approach.
Taking a stab at it (and I haven't been reading this
thread thoroughly, so apologies if this is treading old
ground) ideally, I'd ignore all the tagged ASN.1 that we
don't know about, keep going until there's some parsing
error we can't deal with, and *then* check the version
number for error-reporting. This would have gotten us
through the differences between PKCS#7 and RFC2630
fairly handily.
By the way, while I'm here - the CMS in PKCS#7 is v1.5.
What's the version of CMS in RFC2630? How should we
refer to it?
Andrew Shellshear.
"Guttman, Peter" <pgut001(_at_)cs(_dot_)aucKland(_dot_)ac(_dot_)nz> writes:
"Pawling, John" <John(_dot_)Pawling(_at_)GetronicsGov(_dot_)com> writes:
Nobody (except for Peter) has stated that their
implementations rejected an
EnvelopedData based solely on the version value.
OTOH nobody (except for you) has stated that their
implementations won't reject
an EnvelopedData based solely on the version value. I'd
really like to see
some comments from other implementors - Baltimore, MS,
Entrust, OpenSSL,
Netscape, what do all of these implementations do? If the
vendors won't
respond, perhaps someone who has all this stuff installed for
interop testing
or whatever could feed them some EnvelopedData with a weird
version number (eg
42) to see what they do.
Peter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended
for the addressee(s) only. If you have received this message in error or
there are any problems please notify the originator immediately. The
unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is
strictly forbidden. Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for direct,
special, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the
contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any virus being
passed on.
In addition, certain Marketing collateral may be added from time to time to
promote Baltimore Technologies products, services, Global e-Security or
appearance at trade shows and conferences.
This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by
Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including
computer viruses.