Skip to content

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

Merged
PranavSenthilnathan merged 2 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom
PranavSenthilnathan:implicit-rejection-docs
Jul 7, 2026
Merged

Explain why RSA PKCS1 implicit rejection isn't used#126887
PranavSenthilnathan merged 2 commits into
dotnet: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.

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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.

@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
@PranavSenthilnathan PranavSenthilnathan enabled auto-merge (squash) July 7, 2026 03:43
@PranavSenthilnathan PranavSenthilnathan merged commit e7ebd87 into dotnet:main Jul 7, 2026
106 checks passed
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.

3 participants