<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi Valerie, thanks for the comments:<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/8/2019 4:50 PM, Valerie Peng
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f52ee176-1d0c-473d-de4d-bcbc94997927@oracle.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Hi Jamil,</p>
<p>Sorry for the late reply. It's been a long while since I looked
at this PBES2 scheme and I need to think a few things through.<br>
</p>
<p><src/java.base/share/classes/com/sun/crypto/provider/PBES2Parameters.java></p>
<p>- line 29-30, 37, I don't see Constructor, BigInteger, and
ArrayList being used?</p>
</blockquote>
JN: I must have removed them in my local copy of the code since I
posted the .02 webrev. They'll be gone in this next webrev.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f52ee176-1d0c-473d-de4d-bcbc94997927@oracle.com">
<p>- line 158: the pbes2AlgorithmNameis initialized to null. Is it
our intention to return null if toString() is called upon an
PBES2 AlgorithmParameters object without init(...) call?</p>
</blockquote>
JN: Hmm...that's a good question. In the case of PBES2 alg params
with a fully qualified name (PBEWith<prf>And<cipher>)
the pbes2AlgorithmName is initialized to whatever static class is
instantiated from SunJCE.java. So we don't have to worry there. In
the case of actually using "PBES2" (or its OID counterpart, which is
more common), it looks like even before my changes it returned
null. What do you think about returning "PBES2" instead? Once it
goes through init the field will be set to whatever it truly is
based on the DER encoding received.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f52ee176-1d0c-473d-de4d-bcbc94997927@oracle.com">
<p>- line 176: does "keysize" means the optional keyLength field
inside the PBES2-params struct? Its value is from various
sources. A proper definition would help ensure its value is
correctly set.</p>
</blockquote>
JN: Well, keysize does mean that, but it affects the resulting
toString name and can also have an impact on init-time consistency
checks in some cases.<br>
<br>
Keysize is one of the challenging parts of this class, because it
can be defined in multiple ways. It can be implicit (such as in DES
or DESede), it can be explicit by OID like it is for AES, and it can
be defined by parameters such as in RC2 - there is one OID, no
matter whether you do RC2_40, RC2_64 or RC2_128. Or it can be not
defined at all (RC5) in which case you have to assume a reasonable
default (like I assume RC5_128) or hope that the KDF parameter
segment asserts a key length. So it gets set in different parts of
the code depending on the algorithm and how it's specified.<br>
<br>
Maybe you can expand a bit on what you're looking for by "proper
definition" and I can try to make that happen.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f52ee176-1d0c-473d-de4d-bcbc94997927@oracle.com">
<p>- line 207: If encoding to a DerOutputStream, why not decode
using a DerInputStream? <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
JN: There's no reason why it couldn't be done that way. I used
DerValue mainly because decoding in PBES2Parameters has been done
with DerValue objects from before I started working with the code.
So I kept it the same since it seemed to work well.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f52ee176-1d0c-473d-de4d-bcbc94997927@oracle.com">
<p> </p>
<p>- line 203: based on RFC3370, 5911, the preferred way for HMAC
is to omit the parameters instead of encoding a NULL. So, we
probably should not encode a null on line 203. Also, for decode,
line 520 to 522 can be moved here so that the decode can handle
both cases, i.e. omitted and present NULL, for max
compatibility.</p>
</blockquote>
JN: From all the OpenSSL parameter blocks I've looked at, Hmac
params will assert NULL. There's some interesting history to
AlgorithmIdentifier's optional parameter field when there are no
parameters in RFC 4055, sec 2.1. In short, a change happened in the
1997 syntax that removed "optional" which was later fixed, but by
then people were getting around the now mandatory field by putting
NULL in there. Honestly, I see NULLs asserted more commonly than it
being omitted for message digest and HMAC AlgorithmIdentifiers. But
that might just be me. According to 4055, omitting the parameters
field is the correct way to do it, you are correct about that.
Implementations are supposed to accept both forms. I stuck with it
because a.) we were already doing that and nobody was having
problems with it, b.) I see NULL asserted more frequently so it
seemed like the safer way to go.<br>
<br>
I can try omitting it and see if openssl will accept it. If it does
then I can make the change permanent. If it doesn't like it, we
should probably leave the NULL in there. I've got no idea how
anyone else encodes AlgorithmIdentifiers...maybe I can play around
with NSS and see what it does with Hmac parameters if I can find a
tool that will encode some.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f52ee176-1d0c-473d-de4d-bcbc94997927@oracle.com">
<p>- line 295 - 298: if there is a comment on line 271 which
explains when "keyLen" is for, then we don't need this block of
comment. Essentially, keyLen holds that restricted key length
value, right? KEYLEN_ANY means no restriction whatsoever.</p>
</blockquote>
JN: Or it can mean that the key length is implicit (e.g. DES is
always 56 bits, so I don't need to encode it in ASN.1 and I don't
need toString to say DES_56...DES is fine).<br>
<br>
Maybe rather than a comment on 271, maybe a similar description for
KEYLEN_ANY up on 154 might be a good way to go.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f52ee176-1d0c-473d-de4d-bcbc94997927@oracle.com">
<p>- line 376: the impl of validateEncParams() seems to allow null
cipherParams as it returns immediately if its value is null. I
am not sure if we should allow null cipherParam though as this
cipherParam object is needed for encoding "encryptionScheme"
field of the PBES2-params struct. For example, if the parameters
field for AES_128_CBC must contain 16-byte IV, then a null
cipherParams should be rejected. Same goes to other encryption
schemes.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
JN: There are tests in the PKCS#12 family of tests that were
breaking when I strictly enforced non-null cipherParams from the
PBEParameterSpec. I didn't want to risk messing up a use case in
PKCS#12-land that didn't apply directly to what I was fixing. What
I do need to do is have it fail on encoding when null parameters are
used, that will be in the next rev of the code. I hate not being
able to fail-fast, but it would at least remain consistent with how
PBES2Parameters works today.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f52ee176-1d0c-473d-de4d-bcbc94997927@oracle.com">
<p> </p>
<p>- line 379: Since encyptionType is found using cipherAlgo and
keysize in the constructor, why can't we just format <span
class="changed">encryptionType.schemeName as in</span> <span
class="changed">getEncSchemeName()? </span><span
class="changed"><br>
</span></p>
</blockquote>
JN: Hmm...maybe we can do that. Let me give it a try and see what
happens.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f52ee176-1d0c-473d-de4d-bcbc94997927@oracle.com">
<p><span class="changed"> </span></p>
<p>- line 419-422: Shouldn't this check be moved up to line 414,
i.e. in the block of code which handles the buggy encoding?
Otherwise, it looks like a duplicate check of line 400.</p>
</blockquote>
JN: I don't think so. I think you need both. On line 400,
regardless of the structure (PBES2 AlgorithmIdentifier vs.
PBES2-params) it must start with a sequence, so that check has to be
there. If it's out at the PBES2 AlgId layer (the error, which would
manifest itself as an OID as the next object in the DerValue stream)
then line 414 peels that away and what's next is your PBKDF2-params.<br>
<br>
Line 419 has to check if the next ASN.1 structure that sits as a
peer to PBKDF2-params is also a sequence, which it has to be,
therefore the check on the tag is performed before sending it in to
be parsed.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f52ee176-1d0c-473d-de4d-bcbc94997927@oracle.com">
<p>- line 494, 630, 735: change the check to use KEYLEN_ANY?</p>
</blockquote>
JN: makes sense.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f52ee176-1d0c-473d-de4d-bcbc94997927@oracle.com">
<p>-line 638: extra indentation?</p>
</blockquote>
JN: Yes, fixed.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f52ee176-1d0c-473d-de4d-bcbc94997927@oracle.com">
<p>- line 725-752: Seems better to check the IV length before
checking and set the keysize.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
JN: OK I can switch the order on those.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f52ee176-1d0c-473d-de4d-bcbc94997927@oracle.com">
<p> </p>
<p>- line 788: May return RC2_-1 or RC5_-1?<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
JN: Hmm...maybe in the DER parsing case, now that
AlgorithmId/AlgorithmParameters handles the DER decoding I can't set
the keysize as part of the parsing process any longer. Let me take
a closer look at it and get back to you on that one. I think RC5
can fall into that trap, not sure about RC2.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f52ee176-1d0c-473d-de4d-bcbc94997927@oracle.com">
<p> </p>
<p>Will send you comments for the rest of webrev separately.</p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>Valerie<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><src/java.base/share/classes/com/sun/crypto/provider/RC2Parameters.java></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><src/java.base/share/classes/com/sun/crypto/provider/SunJCE.java></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><src/java.base/share/classes/com/sun/crypto/provider/RC5Parameters.java></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><test/jdk/com/sun/crypto/provider/AlgorithmParameters/PBES2Parameters.java></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><test/jdk/com/sun/crypto/provider/AlgorithmParameters/RC5Parameters.java><br>
</p>
<p><br>
<code></code></p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/20/2019 6:59 PM, Jamil Nimeh
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:bd96ce08-18d5-74bc-045f-3ed48e534fff@oracle.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
Hello all,<br>
<br>
I've updated the fix to 8076999 with the following changes:<br>
<ul>
<li>We now use sun.security.x509.AlgorithmId and it internally
uses AlgorithmParameters implementations to handle the DER
encoding and decoding of encryption scheme parameters.<br>
</li>
<ul>
<li>This means that we need to add one new standard name and
some OID aliases for some AlgorithmParameters. See the
CSR link below for details.</li>
</ul>
<li>Added a new RC5Parameter AlgorithmParameters
implementation to SunJCE, plus unit tests.</li>
</ul>
<p>CSR: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8221936"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8221936</a></p>
<p>Bug: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8076999"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8076999</a></p>
<p>Webrev: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jnimeh/reviews/8076999/webrev.02"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jnimeh/reviews/8076999/webrev.02</a></p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/24/2019 3:51 PM, Jamil Nimeh
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6afc52c5-cf29-827a-0591-27714bcd6068@oracle.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<p>Hello all, happy Friday!<br>
</p>
<p>Please review the following CSR and code review. This
makes updates to the SunJCE implementation of PBES2-based
AlgorithmParameters. Many of the details are in the CSR
(see the link below). But a short list of the updates:</p>
<ul>
<li>Add DER Encode/Decode support for the following OIDS
from RFC 8018:<br>
</li>
<ul>
<li>PRFs: HmacSHA512/224, HmacSHA512/256</li>
<li>Encryption Schemes: AES-192-CBC, DES, Triple-DES, RC2,
RC5</li>
</ul>
<li>Enforce init-time type consistency between
AlgorithmParameterSpec objects and the algorithms they are
used with (i.e. No using RC5ParameterSpec with
AES-128-CBC.</li>
<li>Enforce sanity checks on AlgorithmParameterSpec objects
used to init (e.g. IV length checks, integer range checks,
etc.)</li>
<li>Fixed a bug where explicit DER decoding of the optional
key length field in PBKDF2-params would cause the PRF to
be forced to HmacSHA1 even if the DER indicated otherwise</li>
<li>Allow incoming DER encoded AlgorithmIdentifier
structures to honor the OPTIONAL qualifier on the
parameters field for both PRFs and Encryption Schemes.</li>
<li>If a null encryption scheme AlgorithmParameterSpec is
provided during init time, omit the
PBES2-params.encryptionScheme's parameter segment since it
is OPTIONAL per the ASN.1 from RFC 5280</li>
</ul>
<p>More details are in the CSR.<br>
</p>
<p>CSR: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8221936"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8221936</a></p>
<p>Bug: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8076999"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8076999</a></p>
<p>Webrev: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jnimeh/reviews/8076999/webrev.01/"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jnimeh/reviews/8076999/webrev.01/</a></p>
<p>--Jamil<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>