RFR 8044199: tests for RSA keys and key specifications

2015-07-10 Thread Tristan Yan
Hi Please review new tests for RSA keys and key specifications Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8044199 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tyan/8044199/webrev.01/ Thanks Tristan

RFR 8044199: tests for RSA keys and key specifications

2015-08-03 Thread Tristan Yan
Pinging Hi Please review new tests for RSA keys and key specifications Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8044199 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tyan/8044199/webrev.01/

RFR for JDK-8048604 : Tests for strong crypto ciphers

2015-08-12 Thread Tristan Yan
Please be free review these new tests for strong crypto ciphers. webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tyan/8048604/webrev.01/ bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8048604 Thank you very much Tristan

RE : RFR 8044199: tests for RSA keys and key specifications

2015-08-20 Thread Tristan Yan
ice. 4) sizeTest() doesn't really check size but rather it compares the modulus values being equal. This check can be moved to RSAKeySizeTest.java. For RSATest.java 1) specify provider "SunRSASign" for all getInstance() calls. Thanks, Valerie On 8/3/2015 10:27 AM, Tristan Yan wrote:

Re: RFR 8044199: tests for RSA keys and key specifications

2015-09-08 Thread Tristan Yan
KeyModulusTest? I think u need to match them. > > Thanks, > Valerie > On 8/20/2015 9:31 AM, Tristan Yan wrote: >> >> Thanks Valerie >> >> Please review the fixed version. >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tyan/8044199/webrev.02/ >>

Re: RFR for JDK-8048604 : Tests for strong crypto ciphers

2015-09-21 Thread Tristan Yan
The implementation isn't >> that different, they both return a pair of ciphers. U can handle the >> different parameter type and secret key generation using a switch construct >> based on the specified algorithm 'algo'. >> - line 217 and

Re: RFR for JDK-8048604 : Tests for strong crypto ciphers

2015-09-23 Thread Tristan Yan
check all) didn't specify a provider when calling > Cipher.getInstance(). > > > - both the proceedSkipTestUsingXXX() methods should check to ensure that > "SAVE" number of bytes are read. > > > - line 217 is redundant > > Thanks, > Valerie >