Skip to content

Explain why RSA PKCS1 implicit rejection isn't used#126887

Open
PranavSenthilnathan wants to merge 1 commit intodotnet:mainfrom
PranavSenthilnathan:implicit-rejection-docs
Open

Explain why RSA PKCS1 implicit rejection isn't used#126887
PranavSenthilnathan wants to merge 1 commit intodotnet:mainfrom
PranavSenthilnathan:implicit-rejection-docs

Conversation

@PranavSenthilnathan
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Expands comments on why we don't use implicit rejection for RSA PKCS#1.

@PranavSenthilnathan PranavSenthilnathan self-assigned this Apr 14, 2026
Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 14, 2026 17:27
@dotnet-policy-service
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Tagging subscribers to this area: @bartonjs, @vcsjones, @dotnet/area-system-security
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

Expands the in-source documentation in the OpenSSL RSA interop layer to explain why .NET disables OpenSSL’s PKCS#1 RSA “implicit rejection” behavior (and attempts to turn it off via rsa_pkcs1_implicit_rejection).

Changes:

  • Replaces the existing brief explanation with a more detailed comment describing OpenSSL’s implicit rejection behavior and the motivation for disabling it.
  • Adds additional rationale bullets covering compatibility/spec alignment and security considerations.

Comment on lines +87 to +89
// padding (software keys only), OpenSSL synthesizes a deterministic random value derived from the
// private key and ciphertext, leaving callers to handle it with constant-time comparison. This
// was intended to mitigate Bleichenbacher-style padding oracle attacks.
Comment on lines +89 to +106
// was intended to mitigate Bleichenbacher-style padding oracle attacks.
//
// Some Linux distributions (notably CentOS/RHEL via Red Hat backports) applied this change to
// earlier OpenSSL versions (e.g. 3.1), which broke some .NET tests.
//
// We disable this feature ("implicit rejection") for several reasons:
// 1. Platform consistency: other platforms (Windows, macOS) and hardware-backed keys still
// return explicit errors; callers should see the same behavior everywhere.
// 2. It deviates from RSA specifications and OpenSSL itself had to disable it to pass FIPS
// conformance tests.
// 3. It broke OpenSSL's own CMS (EnvelopedCMS) implementation, so OpenSSL turns it off
// internally when doing CMS operations.
// 4. It does not fully solve the Bleichenbacher problem; it converts a "FFT" oracle into a
// "FFF" oracle. While FFF is ~1000x harder to exploit, the attack is not eliminated.
//
// Therefore we revert to the prior behavior: invalid padding produces an explicit error code
// and .NET throws an exception. This is a best-effort flag; if the running OpenSSL version does
// not recognize it, we silently ignore the failure (see ERR_set_mark / ERR_pop_to_mark below).
// was intended to mitigate Bleichenbacher-style padding oracle attacks.
//
// Some Linux distributions (notably CentOS/RHEL via Red Hat backports) applied this change to
// earlier OpenSSL versions (e.g. 3.1), which broke some .NET tests.
@PranavSenthilnathan PranavSenthilnathan changed the title Explain why RSA PKCS#1 implicit rejection isn't used Explain why RSA PKCS1 implicit rejection isn't used Apr 14, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants