Oh, forgot one other issue: I also need to pick apart the RSA keys into their constituent exponents, modulus, etc. as BN's that I can then compare to bit-strings.
With the old RSA_* routines this was trivial. How does one do this with the EVP_PKEY_* interface so that it works with 1.1.x and 3.0? > On Apr 27, 2022, at 10:43 AM, Philip Prindeville > <philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I've been trying to rewrite the res_crypto.so support in Asterisk to use > Openssl-1.1.x and the EVP_PKEY interface, rather than the AES_* and RSA_* > stuff. > > The AES stuff uses ECB and 128 bit keys... That's a larger issue of > redesigning the entire API and the client apps to support GCM and stronger > keys. Yes, I'm aware... but I'm focusing on baby steps for now. > > To make sure I'm not breaking anything, I'm trying to add test coverage > (including test vectors) for both. > > AES-ECB is easy, because it's 100% reproducible. > > RSA is turning out to be trickier, because of OAEP and PKCSv1.5 randomness. > > As I see it, I have two choices: > > (1) test RSA as an end-to-end pipeline, encrypting, then decrypting, and > verifying that there's agreement on the plaintext message at both ends--this > gives no visibility into the intermediate crypt text results... for all I > know, the text is going through unchanged; > > (2) mess with the randomness/seeding of OAEP and PSS to force it to always > generate the same results--this is ideal from a reproducibility point of > view, but cryptographically a nightmare; > > As a test, I tried to generate my crypt text from the CLI to paste into my C > code as: > > % echo -n "Mary had a littl" | openssl rsautl -inkey tests/keys/rsa_key1.pub > -pubin -encrypt -oaep -rand /dev/zero | xxd --include -c 8 > > But repeating this command gets me different output every time, so faking out > the random-number generator with something that always generates the same > value doesn't seem to be sufficient. > > How do other people deal with this? > > The other tests I need to do are RSA signing and verifying. Verifying is > easy because I can use a canned signature (and key, of course). Signing is > more problematic, because of the non-determinism/reproducibility. > > Same question: how do other people deal with this? > > Thanks, > > -Philip > > >
