In https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=589158, David Stutzman Created attachment 467756 [details] - "correct patch showing + for lines instead of -" JSS uses SHAxwithEC as their naming for EC Signature algorithms but Sun's "Standard Algorithm Names" are SHAxwithECDSA. I was using Sun's CertPath API to attempt to chain some EC certificates that had SHA384withECDSA signatures and the building of the CertPath threw an exception because it couldn't find a provider that supported SHA384withECDSA. The attached patch just adds the 4 aliases for the standard Sun algorithm names to the JSS provider. Adding these aliases should enable JSS's ECC functionality to be used in more places throughout the entire Java library as it would now support the algorithm names that the library uses.
Wan-Teh Chang approved this patch: r=wtc. It would be nice if we could make SHA1withECDSA the algorithm name and make SHA1withEC an alias. Would that break any code?
David Stutzman replied: As far as I could tell, the way you guys are creating the provider now, it's reporting the main names of SHAxwithEC. After I added the new aliases I queried the Provider for it's Provider.Services and called getAlgorithm() and it doesn't explicity list the new ones (or any aliases). It seems to only show the initial algorithm name. I don't know if there's a way to get all the aliases for a particular Provider.Service. http://download.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/security/Provider.Service.html says: "Optionally, it also includes a list of alternate algorithm names for this service (aliases) and attributes, which are a map of (name, value) String pairs," but there doesn't appear to be any getter for that info. http://download.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/guides/security/crypto/HowToImplAProvider.html#Aliases Not a whole lot of helpful info here, but that's the official word on aliases. On the topic of breaking existing code by changing defaults: Looking at it with this patch applied if you call Signature.getInstance("SHA256withEC"), it will work. If you call Signature.getInstance("SHA256withECDSA"), it will work. If you change the other name to be the default, again either call above will work. The only thing I can see breaking is if someone queries the Provider programatically using Provider.getServices() and then accessing the Provider.Service objects to get names and is expecting to match on the old string (SHAxwithEC) at that point because that won't list aliases. Most likely it wouldn't be a huge deal because I suspect that not many people are using JSS/NSS for ECC at this time, but that's your call.
pushed: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=589158#c6
This message is a reminder that Fedora 27 is nearing its end of life. On 2018-Nov-30 Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 27. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '27'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 27 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 27 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2018-11-30. Fedora 27 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.