-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 144
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add X25519Kyber768Draft00 experimental HPKE KEM #421
Conversation
Thanks @chris-wood ! |
For your convenience:
|
What incantation do I need to invoke to make these changes locally? Can we get that set up in a |
|
This is sort of unhelpful in that it just runs the linter without actually applying changes. I'll send a PR to update the Makefile so that there's a target for actually doing the formatting. |
@bwesterb I pushed some preliminary test vector generation code. |
Marking as ready for review now. I updated when keys are validated (only when we receive them over the wire through deserialization functions). Fail early and fail often! |
️✅ There are no secrets present in this pull request anymore.If these secrets were true positive and are still valid, we highly recommend you to revoke them. 🦉 GitGuardian detects secrets in your source code to help developers and security teams secure the modern development process. You are seeing this because you or someone else with access to this repository has authorized GitGuardian to scan your pull request. |
@@ -105,10 +105,6 @@ type Sender struct { | |||
|
|||
// NewSender creates a Sender with knowledge of the receiver's public-key. | |||
func (suite Suite) NewSender(pkR kem.PublicKey, info []byte) (*Sender, error) { | |||
if !suite.kemID.validatePublicKey(pkR) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As part of this checking, the validation also checks whether the KEM in the suite is compatible with the KEM key.
The same applies to other checking.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's address that in a separate PR?
@armfazh can you please re-review? I'd like to merge this and address KEM-specific validation steps in a separate PR, if possible. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
it looks good, could you please squash the commits.
2424c4f
to
13bd304
Compare
@armfazh squashed and ready to go! |
This change also adds the ability to produce test vectors for the draft specification: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-westerbaan-cfrg-hpke-xyber768d00/ This change also updates the known answer test vectors from RFC9180.
13bd304
to
161705b
Compare
Cool 😎 |
See the draft. Some tasks still left to do: