Update documentation to accurately reflect S/MIME standards-compliance#14565
Open
Update documentation to accurately reflect S/MIME standards-compliance#14565
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The current implementation uses structure definitions from PKCS#7, which is what S/MIME 2.0 is defined upon. It does not utilize or tolerate anything newer. The existing documentation is misleading by implying that there's any S/MIME 3.2 compliance beyond AES-CBC.
Even though it would be harmless for existing code to tolerate things such as keys meant for other recipients that use ECDSA or EdDSA, it however does not. It is also not the only limitation where the current implementation just chokes.
The current implementation is in most parts practically equivalent to the
openssl-smimeutility, which has the same pitfall of not tolerating any newer versions of CMS. The more modern and currently recommendedopenssl-cmsutility does however have this support.In general, as long as the implementation is kept as it is, the users should not be mislead that the project implements (or aims to implement) newer versions. Especially considering that there has been no willingness by the maintainers to remedy the parts that violate newer versions of the specifications.