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 be
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
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
-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
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,
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.
