On Tue, 2019-07-02 at 22:12 +0200, Niels Möller wrote:
> Simo Sorce writes:
>
> > On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 10:48 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 11:42 +0200, Niels Möller wrote:
> > > > Simo Sorce writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Attached find patch that adds points checks to the
Simo Sorce writes:
> On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 10:48 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 11:42 +0200, Niels Möller wrote:
>> > Simo Sorce writes:
>> >
>> > > Attached find patch that adds points checks to the ECDH test case.
>> > > Let me know if that's ok or if you prefer a whole
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 2:24 PM Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > Less copy-pasting as the numbers are smaller, the curve used really
> > > makes no difference.
> > >
> > > Nioks,
> > > is the fact we do not enable 192r1 in some distribution a problem?
> >
> > I replied in private previously,
>
> sorry,
On Fri, 2019-05-17 at 08:47 +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 10:48 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 11:42 +0200, Niels Möller wrote:
> > > Simo Sorce writes:
> > >
> > > > Attached find patch that adds points checks to the ECDH test
> > > > case.
>
On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 10:48 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 11:42 +0200, Niels Möller wrote:
> > Simo Sorce writes:
> >
> > > Attached find patch that adds points checks to the ECDH test
> > > case.
> > > Let me know if that's ok or if you prefer a whole new test.
> >
> > I
On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 10:48 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 11:42 +0200, Niels Möller wrote:
> > Simo Sorce writes:
> >
> > > Attached find patch that adds points checks to the ECDH test case.
> > > Let me know if that's ok or if you prefer a whole new test.
> >
> > I think
On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 11:42 +0200, Niels Möller wrote:
> Simo Sorce writes:
>
> > Attached find patch that adds points checks to the ECDH test case.
> > Let me know if that's ok or if you prefer a whole new test.
>
> I think it's ok to have it in the same file.
>
> > -static void
> >
Simo Sorce writes:
> Attached find patch that adds points checks to the ECDH test case.
> Let me know if that's ok or if you prefer a whole new test.
I think it's ok to have it in the same file.
> -static void
> -set_point (struct ecc_point *p,
> -const char *x, const char *y)
>
On Mon, 2019-05-13 at 08:44 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-05-11 at 10:00 +0200, Niels Möller wrote:
> > Simo Sorce writes:
> >
> > > While reviewing FIPS requirements for public key checks in Ephemeral
> > > Diffie-Hellman key exchanges it came out that FIPS requires checks that
> > >
On Sat, 2019-05-11 at 10:00 +0200, Niels Möller wrote:
> Simo Sorce writes:
>
> > While reviewing FIPS requirements for public key checks in Ephemeral
> > Diffie-Hellman key exchanges it came out that FIPS requires checks that
> > the public key point is not the (0, 0) coordinate and nettle is
Simo Sorce writes:
> While reviewing FIPS requirements for public key checks in Ephemeral
> Diffie-Hellman key exchanges it came out that FIPS requires checks that
> the public key point is not the (0, 0) coordinate and nettle is not
> doing it (only checks that neither point is negative.
While reviewing FIPS requirements for public key checks in Ephemeral
Diffie-Hellman key exchanges it came out that FIPS requires checks that
the public key point is not the (0, 0) coordinate and nettle is not
doing it (only checks that neither point is negative.
Add this check as we never want to
12 matches
Mail list logo
