Fwd: [pkcs11-comment] PKCS#11 v2.40 issues

[Valerie Fenwick <valerie.fenwick@oracle.com>]

Hi folks -

These are the list of comments I was referencing in today's
meeting. Most probably line up with Stef's errata, but we need
to see where they do not align to make sure these errata get
addressed in 2.41 (and we need someone to respond to Jaroslav)


Looking at these draft meeting minutes, it looks like John L had agreed 
to go over these. Hopefully he can give us an update at the next meeting.

https://wiki.oasis-open.org/pkcs11/MeetingMinutes/Minutes27052015

Thanks, Valerie
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[pkcs11-comment] PKCS#11 v2.40 issues
Date: 	Sun, 17 May 2015 23:33:45 +0200
From: 	Jaroslav Imrich <jaroslav.imrich@gmail.com>
To: 	pkcs11-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
CC: 	robert.griffin@rsa.com, valerie.fenwick@oracle.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=info

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 <mailto:jaroslav.imrich@gmail.com>