Merged
Conversation
The current code accepts them but produces wrong public keys, resulting in highly confusing `assertion `left == right` failed: Public key is not a good point` errors being raised from subtle/p256_ecdh.
Member
Author
|
Two notes on the function's behavior, apart from the obvious new rejection of "malformed" items:
|
Member
Author
|
The panicing is already tracked in #93, and there's a note in the code on it around https://github.com/openwsn-berkeley/lakers/blob/e1561d63f7a5e343a916852aae074524948e4384/crypto/lakers-crypto-rustcrypto/src/lib.rs#L118 |
Collaborator
|
Looks good, thanks! |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
parse_ccs is very lax right now, and that can cause great confusion: when sending a key in an unexpected format, a panic may happen deep inside p256 / subtle, around public keys being not a good point. (We should catch that panic either way, but this had sent me to the completely wrong track).
This adds a test for whether the parsing function rightfully errs out on stuff it doesn't recognize, and rewrites the parsing so that it does err out.