Hello,
how can I simply RSA encrypt buffer (its length may be greater than
RSA_size()) ?
If I use: RSA_public_encrypt(1, from, to, rsa, RSA_PKCS1_PADDING) with
key
with modulo length small enough (e.g. 4096) I am not able correctly decrypt
to buffer. Can somebody help ?
With best regard
I know this has been discussed, but I still am having no luck figuring out
my problem.
In the following code, encryption works fine, but decryption sometimes
doesn't work.
I have to use RSA_NO_PADDING for this application. I am using a 512 bit key
length.
any ideas?
--
steve
key = RSA_n
I'm working on some project, and i have to encrypt and decrypt data (i
know i should use SSL not only for encryption/decryption tasks but also
for transport, but i do not want that), and all is good, when i use one
pair of keys(public/prv) for both sender and recipient(recipient sends
answer ba
hi,
i am sending mail for the first time.i joined recently.i was going through the openssl code and i have come a long way in understanding the high-levelcryptography structure -- where the methods are found, how to use them,etc, but i got stuck in the following: in openssl-0.9.7g/crypto/rsa/rsa.h
HAv a look into the archives (what you anyway should have done
before). There was a thread just one or two days ago that
answered your question.
In short: you can't do this! (And you even would not want to encrypt
large buffers with RSA for performance reasons.)
©I©KA Július schrieb:
>
>He
Hello,
I have a problem for which I found no real solution in the manual or the
list archives.
The basic idea is to encrypt data using RSA_private_encrypt and retrieve it
using RSA_public_decrypt. For RSA_private_encrypt, I set flen to RSA_size()
to encrypt just one block and decrypt it later.
Steve Hartt wrote:
>
> I know this has been discussed, but I still am having no luck figuring out
> my problem.
> In the following code, encryption works fine, but decryption sometimes
> doesn't work.
> I have to use RSA_NO_PADDING for this application. I am using a 512 bit key
> length.
> any
ypted.
Joe
- Original Message -
From: "Jan Zoellner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 2:25 PM
Subject: RSA Encrypt/Decrypt fails
> Hello,
>
> I have a problem for which I found no real solution in the manual or t
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,
-Original Message-
> From: Jan Zoellner [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
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.
You´re right about that. The main goal is indeed pro
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.
I´ve read this post as well.
Thanks for all the info, guys, the code is now working as inten
KCS#1 specified padding prevents this from happening, but if
you are doing a RAW RSA encrypt/decrypt then you have to check the values.
>
> Click on the "RSA Enc/Dec Problem" link
>
> I suggest you unzip it into a separate folder. There is a small readme file
> included. I
-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 be
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
15 matches
Mail list logo
