Consistency between encryption library and RFC [depends on #193] #199
Conversation
5a0c19c to
3fd1305
Compare
3fd1305 to
2bffe03
Compare
pyClient/zeth/encryption.py
Outdated
| # cleared, and bit 6 of the last byte set. This happens at key generation | ||
| # time. See: | ||
| # | ||
| # https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/be9d82bb35812ac65cd92316d1ae7c7c75efe9cf/crypto/ec/ecx_meth.c#L81 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note, the execution path through the code is very difficult to follow. To be sure, I've also experimentally verified that keys are generated with the expectd properties.
50e3a68 to
a5a998e
Compare
pyClient/zeth/encryption.py
Outdated
| # RFC 8439, 2018, | ||
| # <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8439> | ||
|
|
||
| # This implementation makes use of the `cryptography` library with OpenSSL |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for double checking on that @dtebbs
Can we change this comment to a module-level docstring in order to add the explanations below to the module documentation?
|
Also tidied some other things in that file (specifically some duplicated functionality). Let me know if you prefer that split into another PR. |
| @@ -217,3 +234,23 @@ def decrypt( | |||
| message = decryptor.update(ct_sym) | |||
|
|
|||
| return message | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| def _exchange(sk: EncryptionSecretKey, pk: EncryptionPublicKey) -> bytes: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What does _ mean? Does it mean "internal function"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(Same question for the _ prefix used for the constants in the tests)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, exactly. The linters will complain if another module tries to use it, and I think they also use this to check for unused functions.
pyClient/zeth/encryption.py
Outdated
| encrypted with a different public key. | ||
|
|
||
| This implementation makes use of the `cryptography` library with OpenSSL | ||
| nnbackend. For the avoidance of doubt, the implementation adheres to the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nnbackend -> backend
bc05e58 to
e4df1bc
Compare
Verified that the code is consistent with the relevant RFC. Added comments explaining this with links to code.