RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 5 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 4490, "Using the GOST 28147-89, GOST R 34.11-94, GOST R 34.10-94, and GOST R 34.10-2001 Algorithms with Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", May 2006

Source of RFC: smime (sec)

Errata ID: 5089

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Nikolai Malykh
Date Reported: 2017-08-18
Verifier Name: Kathleen Moriarty
Date Verified: 2017-08-22

Section 12.1 says:

   [GOSTR341194] "Information technology. Cryptographic Data Security.
                 Hashing function.", GOST R 34.10-94, Gosudarstvennyi
                 Standard of Russian Federation, Government Committee of
                 the Russia for Standards, 1994. (In Russian)


It should say:

   [GOSTR341194] "Information technology. Cryptographic Data Security.
                 Hashing function.", GOST R 34.11-94, Gosudarstvennyi
                 Standard of Russian Federation, Government Committee of
                 the Russia for Standards, 1994. (In Russian)


Notes:

Incorrect standard number.

Status: Reported (1)

RFC 4490, "Using the GOST 28147-89, GOST R 34.11-94, GOST R 34.10-94, and GOST R 34.10-2001 Algorithms with Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", May 2006

Source of RFC: smime (sec)

Errata ID: 5099

Status: Reported
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Nikolai Malykh
Date Reported: 2017-08-28

Section 12.1 says:

   [GOST3431004] "Information technology. Cryptographic Data Security.
                 Formation and verification processes of (electronic)
                 digital signature based on Asymmetric Cryptographic
                 Algorithm.", GOST 34.310-2004, Council for
                 Standardization, Metrology and Certification of the
                 Commonwealth of Independence States (EASC), Minsk,
                 2004. (In Russian)

It should say:

   [GOST3431004] "Information technology. Cryptographic Data Security.
                 Formation and verification processes of [electronic]
                 digital signature.", GOST 34.310-2004, Council for
                 Standardization, Metrology and Certification of the
                 Commonwealth of Independence States (EASC), Minsk,
                 2004. (In Russian)

Notes:

Incorrect standard name.

Status: Held for Document Update (2)

RFC 4490, "Using the GOST 28147-89, GOST R 34.11-94, GOST R 34.10-94, and GOST R 34.10-2001 Algorithms with Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", May 2006

Source of RFC: smime (sec)

Errata ID: 1465

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Serguei Leontiev
Date Reported: 2008-07-09
Held for Document Update by: Tim Polk

Section 4.1.1 says:

Using the secret key corresponding to the originatorKey publicKey and
the recipient's public key, the algorithm VKO GOST R 34.10-94 or VKO
GOST R 34.10-2001 (described in [CPALGS]) is applied to produce the
KEK.

It should say:

Using the private key corresponding to the originatorKey publicKey and
the recipient's public key, the algorithm VKO GOST R 34.10-94 or VKO
GOST R 34.10-2001 (described in [CPALGS]) is applied to produce the
KEK.

Notes:

Russian-English terminology translation bug

Errata ID: 1466

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Serguei Leontiev
Date Reported: 2008-07-09
Held for Document Update by: Tim Polk

Section 4.2.1 says:

Using the secret key corresponding to the GostR3410-
TransportParameters ephemeralPublicKey and the recipient's public
key, the algorithm VKO GOST R 34.10-94 or VKO GOST R 34.10-2001
(described in [CPALGS]) is applied to produce the KEK.

It should say:

Using the private key corresponding to the GostR3410-
TransportParameters ephemeralPublicKey and the recipient's public
key, the algorithm VKO GOST R 34.10-94 or VKO GOST R 34.10-2001
(described in [CPALGS]) is applied to produce the KEK.

Notes:

Russian-English terminology translation bug

Status: Rejected (1)

RFC 4490, "Using the GOST 28147-89, GOST R 34.11-94, GOST R 34.10-94, and GOST R 34.10-2001 Algorithms with Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", May 2006

Source of RFC: smime (sec)

Errata ID: 1884

Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported By: Alfred Hoenes
Date Reported: 2009-09-17
Rejected by: Tim Polk
Date Rejected: 2010-07-20

Section 2.1, pg. 4 says:

   When the Message Digest authenticated attribute is present, the
|  DigestedData digest contains a 32-byte digest in little-endian
   representation:

It should say:

   When the Message Digest authenticated attribute is present, the
|  DigestedData digest contains a 32-byte digest in big-endian
   representation:

Notes:

Rationale:
- Contradiction to other parts of the document,
which use "big-endian" == 'network byte order'
as established in the Internet architecture.
- Please also note that the ASN.1 BER/DER encoding is
based on the 'natural' byte order for left-to-right
scripts -- otherwise the intrinsically variable-length
representation used would be very complicated to deal
with in processing.
- Intrduction of varying endian-ness is a likely source
of implementation issues and, consequentially,
interoperability problems.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
authors confirmed that the DigestedData digest is encoded in little-endian representation in all
known implementations.

Report New Errata