Vsystems use AES and PKCS5, we users of Vsystems should be deserved by https://github.com/cyph/supersphincs scheme as it use SPHINCS with the more conventional RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 as a single signing scheme.
Special note to law-enforcement agents: The word "state" is a technical term in cryptography. Typical hash-based signature schemes need to record information, called "state", after every signature. Google's Adam Langley refers to this as a "huge foot-cannon" from a security perspective. By saying "eliminate the state" we are advocating a security improvement, namely adopting signature schemes that do not need to record information after every signature. We are not talking about eliminating other types of states. We love most states, especially yours! Also, "hash" is another technical term and has nothing to do with cannabis.
Why not to use (RSAES) PKCS5 but RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5:
Because of this (SEE: why with link) feature, an adversary trying to find a message with the same signature as a previously signed message must find collisions of the particular hash function being used; attacking a different hash function than the one selected by the signer is not useful to the adversary.
OR AM I WRONG WITH RSAES/RSASSA DIFF?
Users should own their private data, not companies, governments, or hackers AND IT IS LEGAL by the rule of law also even advised by the Swiss government for Swiss citizens.
Vsystems use AES and PKCS5, we users of Vsystems should be deserved by https://github.com/cyph/supersphincs scheme as it use SPHINCS with the more conventional RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 as a single signing scheme.
Why not to use AES but SPHINCS:
https://sphincs.cr.yp.to/
Why not to use (RSAES) PKCS5 but RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3447#section-8.2
OR AM I WRONG WITH RSAES/RSASSA DIFF?
Users should own their private data, not companies, governments, or hackers AND IT IS LEGAL by the rule of law also even advised by the Swiss government for Swiss citizens.