I’m not up to speed on JWE, but read this in RFC 7516:

   The following members are defined for use in the JSON objects that
   are elements of the "recipients" array:

   header
      The "header" member MUST be present and contain the value JWE Per-
      Recipient Unprotected Header when the JWE Per-Recipient
      Unprotected Header value is non-empty; otherwise, it MUST be
      absent.  This value is represented as an unencoded JSON object,
      rather than as a string.  These Header Parameter values are not
      integrity protected.

Is it really true that in JWE the per-recipient headers are never protected by 
what ever public key scheme is used by a particular recipient? This seems a 
worse security hole than the lamps attack. Hopefully I’m missing something.

Said another way, it seems that JWE doesn’t have an equivalent of the 
COSE_Encrypt or COSE_Recipient structure.

LL


> On Jun 24, 2025, at 1:07 AM, Hannes Tschofenig 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
>  
> the JOSE and COSE chairs have issued a working group last call on the two 
> HPKE drafts. Most of the content has been aligned, as far as the structural 
> differences between COSE and JOSE allow.
>  
> However, there are some noteworthy differences between the two drafts:
>  
> - The COSE-HPKE draft introduces a new CBOR structure called 
> Recipient_structure, which is passed into the Additional Authenticated Data 
> (AAD) field of the HPKE invocation. This structure contains the protected 
> headers from the COSE_recipient (if present) as well as fixed fields, such as 
> the algorithm used in the next layer.
>  
> - The JOSE-HPKE draft does not define an equivalent structure. It basically 
> leaves it up to a profile of the draft (or to the developer) to define the 
> inforrmation it wants to incorporate.
>  
> Both drafts support the inclusion of mutually known private information via 
> the info field in HPKE. Additionally, each draft offers different extension 
> points for passing additional data into the AAD and info fields.
>  
> I believe further alignment between the two documents would be beneficial.
>  
> Ciao
> Hannes
> _______________________________________________
> COSE mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to