On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 08:04:55PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
It is not a bug, it is a known fact. As Joseph Ashwood notes, you end up
trying to encrypt values that are larger than the modulus. The documentation
and most literature do tend to refer to moduli as having a certain "length"
in
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Reddie, Steven
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 4:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Maximum size of RSA message, was: Re: RSA Encrypt/Decrypt
fails
The message being encrypted/decrypted MUST
Jan Zoellner wrote:
At 15.02.01 13:04, you wrote:
point of using RSA if not ?, so I will insist once again on the fact that you
SHOULDN'T do that.
I reimplemented the whole thing to be padded with random data (which are
discarded upon decryption). PKCS#1 padding is worse than that, if I
oellner [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 12:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RSA Encrypt/Decrypt fails
I reimplemented the whole thing to be padded with random data (which are
discarded upon decryption). PKCS#1 padding is worse than that, if I
At 16.02.01 01:52, you wrote:
I'm guessing that RSA_eay_private_encrypt uses padding
type 1 since this function isn't intended for encrypting data, just signing
it, because data that can be decrypted with a "public" key isn't really
secure.
Youre right about that. The main goal is indeed
At 15.02.01 18:19, you wrote:
What's more, the attack I was refering to, as someone made me notice already,
requires "e" messages, not 2, so it's more difficult to do if you use a
large e,like 65535.
Ive read this post as well.
Thanks for all the info, guys, the code is now working as intended
Just a guess, but a fairly educated one, try setting flen to 1 byte (or even
1 bit) smaller than the key. What I suspect is happening is you are
sometimes trying to encrypt values that are larger than the modulus so
you're getting a modular reduction of the value encrypted.
