http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20358
--- Comment #12 from Juan Lang juan_lang@yahoo.com 2009-10-20 15:08:57 --- The second failing test is an overly restrictive one on chromium's part. The failing test expects the following public key:
const uint8 expected_public_key_info[] = { 0x30, 0x81, 0x9f, 0x30, 0x0d, 0x06, 0x09, 0x2a, 0x86, 0x48, 0x86, 0xf7, 0x0d, 0x01, 0x01, 0x01, 0x05, 0x00, 0x03, 0x81, 0x8d, 0x00, 0x30, 0x81, 0x89, 0x02, 0x81, 0x81, 0x00, 0xb8, 0x7f, 0x2b, 0x20, 0xdc, 0x7c, 0x9b, 0x0c, 0xdc, 0x51, 0x61, 0x99, 0x0d, 0x36, 0x0f, 0xd4, 0x66, 0x88, 0x08, 0x55, 0x84, 0xd5, 0x3a, 0xbf, 0x2b, 0xa4, 0x64, 0x85, 0x7b, 0x0c, 0x04, 0x13, 0x3f, 0x8d, 0xf4, 0xbc, 0x38, 0x0d, 0x49, 0xfe, 0x6b, 0xc4, 0x5a, 0xb0, 0x40, 0x53, 0x3a, 0xd7, 0x66, 0x09, 0x0f, 0x9e, 0x36, 0x74, 0x30, 0xda, 0x8a, 0x31, 0x4f, 0x1f, 0x14, 0x50, 0xd7, 0xc7, 0x20, 0x94, 0x17, 0xde, 0x4e, 0xb9, 0x57, 0x5e, 0x7e, 0x0a, 0xe5, 0xb2, 0x65, 0x7a, 0x89, 0x4e, 0xb6, 0x47, 0xff, 0x1c, 0xbd, 0xb7, 0x38, 0x13, 0xaf, 0x47, 0x85, 0x84, 0x32, 0x33, 0xf3, 0x17, 0x49, 0xbf, 0xe9, 0x96, 0xd0, 0xd6, 0x14, 0x6f, 0x13, 0x8d, 0xc5, 0xfc, 0x2c, 0x72, 0xba, 0xac, 0xea, 0x7e, 0x18, 0x53, 0x56, 0xa6, 0x83, 0xa2, 0xce, 0x93, 0x93, 0xe7, 0x1f, 0x0f, 0xe6, 0x0f, 0x02, 0x03, 0x01, 0x00, 0x01 };
The public key we export instead is: static const BYTE pbEncoded[] = { 0x30, 0x81, 0x9d, 0x30, 0x0b, 0x06, 0x09, 0x2a, 0x86, 0x48, 0x86, 0xf7, 0x0d, 0x01, 0x01, 0x01, 0x03, 0x81, 0x8d, 0x00, 0x30, 0x81, 0x89, 0x02, 0x81, 0x81, 0x00, 0xb8, 0x7f, 0x2b, 0x20, 0xdc, 0x7c, 0x9b, 0x0c, 0xdc, 0x51, 0x61, 0x99, 0x0d, 0x36, 0x0f, 0xd4, 0x66, 0x88, 0x08, 0x55, 0x84, 0xd5, 0x3a, 0xbf, 0x2b, 0xa4, 0x64, 0x85, 0x7b, 0x0c, 0x04, 0x13, 0x3f, 0x8d, 0xf4, 0xbc, 0x38, 0x0d, 0x49, 0xfe, 0x6b, 0xc4, 0x5a, 0xb0, 0x40, 0x53, 0x3a, 0xd7, 0x66, 0x09, 0x0f, 0x9e, 0x36, 0x74, 0x30, 0xda, 0x8a, 0x31, 0x4f, 0x1f, 0x14, 0x50, 0xd7, 0xc7, 0x20, 0x94, 0x17, 0xde, 0x4e, 0xb9, 0x57, 0x5e, 0x7e, 0x0a, 0xe5, 0xb2, 0x65, 0x7a, 0x89, 0x4e, 0xb6, 0x47, 0xff, 0x1c, 0xbd, 0xb7, 0x38, 0x13, 0xaf, 0x47, 0x85, 0x84, 0x32, 0x33, 0xf3, 0x17, 0x49, 0xbf, 0xe9, 0x96, 0xd0, 0xd6, 0x14, 0x6f, 0x13, 0x8d, 0xc5, 0xfc, 0x2c, 0x72, 0xba, 0xac, 0xea, 0x7e, 0x18, 0x53, 0x56, 0xa6, 0x83, 0xa2, 0xce, 0x93, 0x93, 0xe7, 0x1f, 0x0f, 0xe6, 0x0f, 0x02, 0x03, 0x01, 0x00, 0x01 };
You can see the main difference on line 3 of the expected input: there appear two bytes, 0x05,0x00. This is the NULL encoding of asn.1, and represents the algorithm id's parameters, which are empty. We omit them instead. Either encoding is legal. (The remaining differences reflect the different lengths of the outputs.)
Changing our implementation to include the NULL causes our CryptHashPublicKeyInfo implementation to fail, as the tests expect the hashed public key not to contain the NULL. It's possible to fix this by introducing a private function just for CryptHashPublicKeyInfo.. but I think the Chromium test is overly restrictive, and it'd be simpler to fix it to accept either form.