PKCS#11 v2.40 issues

[Jaroslav Imrich <jaroslav.imrich@gmail.com>]

Hello all,

it's been a month since OASIS PKCS#11 TC released PKCS#11 v2.40 as an OASIS standard without the C header files [0]. Previously when I was asking TC to provide headers Robert Griffin said that  "...header files will be illustrative, based on the normative definitions of constants in the appendices to the Base Specification and Mechanisms specifications." [1]. Following this philosophy I took the latest stable headers (v2.20a3) and manually added new items from pkcs11-base-v2.40-os, pkcs11-curr-v2.40-os and pkcs11-hist-v2.40-os documents. In order to keep the process transparent I have created github repository which allows anyone to easily review my changes [2]. During this process I have gone through v2.40-os documents more then once and discovered several issues in them. I consider some of them to be a major issues because they prevented me from completing the headers. I have marked all the issues in my headers with "TODO_v2.40" string and I am also attaching their description later in this e-mail.

BTW I was really surprised when about an hour ago I have found a page called "PKCS#11 Definitions" [3] on PKCS11 TC Wiki which describes most of the issues I have encountered (maybe even all of them). Looking at the page history [4] I can see that most of the issues were documented by Stef Walter when v2.40 was still in the draft stage and I am failing to understand why did TC proceed with the standardization process without fixing them. I would be grateful if someone with more insight into the TC activities could shed some light into this. 

[0] https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/pkcs11-comment/201504/msg00004.html
[1] https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/pkcs11-comment/201410/msg00003.html
[2] https://github.com/jariq/PKCS11-2.40-HEADERS/commit/850c9666c198a7a68d34f235f2a9f50136992e26
[3] https://wiki.oasis-open.org/pkcs11/Definitions
[4] https://wiki.oasis-open.org/pkcs11/Definitions?action="">

OK so here is the list of issues I am facing right now. BTW does TC already maintain official errata for PKCS#11 v2.40 as mentioned in chapter 1 of [pkcs11-base-v2.40-os]? I cannot find it.

MAJOR ISSUE #1
These key types are mentioned in [pkcs11-curr-v2.40-os] but there are no values defined for them:
- CKK_SEED
- CKK_GOSTR3410
- CKK_GOSTR3411
- CKK_GOST28147

MAJOR ISSUE #2
These mechanisms are mentioned in [pkcs11-curr-v2.40-os] but there are no values defined for them:
- CKM_DES3_CMAC_GENERAL
- CKM_DES3_CMAC
- CKM_SEED_KEY_GEN
- CKM_SEED_ECB
- CKM_SEED_CBC
- CKM_SEED_MAC
- CKM_SEED_MAC_GENERAL
- CKM_SEED_CBC_PAD
- CKM_SEED_ECB_ENCRYPT_DATA
- CKM_SEED_CBC_ENCRYPT_DATA
- CKM_AES_GMAC

MAJOR ISSUE #3
These key derivation functions are mentioned in [pkcs11-curr-v2.40-os] but there are no values defined for them:
- CKD_SHA224_KDF
- CKD_SHA256_KDF
- CKD_SHA384_KDF
- CKD_SHA512_KDF
- CKD_CPDIVERSIFY_KDF

MAJOR ISSUE #4
There seems to be an incomplete definition of CK_SEED_CBC_ENCRYPT_DATA_PARAMS and CK_CBC_ENCRYPT_DATA_PARAMS structures present in chapter 2.40.1 of [pkcs11-curr-v2.40-os].

MINOR ISSUE #1
Constant CKR_COPY_PROHIBITED is defined in appendix B of [pkcs11-base-v2.40-os] but it is not mentioned in the text. Is this a leftover after v2.30 that was superseded by CKR_ACTION_PROHIBITED in v2.40?

MINOR ISSUE #2
These structures were present in v2.20 headers but are missing in the text of v2.40 documents:
- CK_ECDH2_DERIVE_PARAMS - it was present in the text of v2.11 chapter 12.4.4.
- CK_TLS_PRF_PARAMS - it was present in v2.20 chapter 12.32.2.
- CK_CAMELLIA_CTR_PARAMS - it was present in v2.20a3 chapter 3.4.3.
What is the current status of these structures? Are they deprecated now? I believe they should be present in v2.40 headers to keep the backwards compatibility.

MINOR ISSUE #3
Definition of CK_DSA_PARAMETER_GEN_PARAM structure is present in the text but CK_DSA_PARAMETER_GEN_PARAM_PTR is missing. Is this intended?

MINOR ISSUE #4
Mechanism CKM_X9_42_DH_PKCS_PARAMETER_GEN defined in [pkcs11-curr-v2.40-os] uses the same value (0x00002002) as CKM_X9_42_DH_PARAMETER_GEN in older versions. Was the renaming intentional? I believe both definitions should be present in v2.40 headers to keep the backwards compatibility.

MINOR ISSUE #5
Constant CK_OTP_FORMAT defined in [pkcs11-curr-v2.40-os] uses the same value (0x00000007) as CK_OTP_OUTPUT_FORMAT in older versions. Was the renaming intentional? I believe both definitions should be present in v2.40 headers to keep the backwards compatibility.

Thanks for any feedback

--

Kind Regards / S pozdravom

Jaroslav Imrich
http://www.jimrich.sk
jaroslav.imrich@gmail.com