RFC Errata
Found 2 records.
Status: Verified (2)
RFC 3110, "RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the Domain Name System (DNS)", May 2001
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6944
Source of RFC: dnsext (int)
Errata ID: 2811
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: George Barwood
Date Reported: 2011-05-21
Verifier Name: Brian Haberman
Date Verified: 2012-05-01
Section 3 says:
Leading zero bytes are permitted in the RSA/SHA1 algorithm signature.
It should say:
Leading zero bytes MUST be added to the RSA/SHA1 algorithm signature so that the signature size in bytes is equal to the size of n in bytes.
Notes:
The Original Text implies that zero-padding of RSA signaturs is optional, however the underlying standard requires zero padding, http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2437#section-8.1.1
"4. Convert the signature representative s to a signature S of length k octets: S = I2OSP (s, k)"
where k is the length of the modulus in bytes. If the extra bytes are not added, standard RSA libraries will fail to verify the signature about 1% of the time when the padding occurs.
Errata ID: 4502
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Mikko Rantanen
Date Reported: 2015-10-14
Verifier Name: Brian Haberman
Date Verified: 2015-10-14
Section 4 says:
conservative choice would be 65537 (F4, the fourth fermat number).
It should say:
conservative choice would be 65537 (F4, the fifth Fermat number).
Notes:
Numbering of Fermat numbers starts from zero. F4 and 65537 agree, but F4 is fifth Fermat number in the series, not fourth.