-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 274
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 EdDSA/Minisign signatures to #397 (sign-hash/sign-file CTAP command) #583
Open
stevenwdv
wants to merge
8
commits into
solokeys:master
Choose a base branch
from
stevenwdv:sign-hash
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
ebef6da
PoC: Add vendor command for signing an arbitrary SHA256 hash
51c0b87
Added EdDSA/Minisign to sign-hash/sign-file command (first version) w…
stevenwdv 7708b97
Only accept hash of 32/64B in ctap_parse_sign_hash
stevenwdv 1fd5b74
Authenticate sign-hash credential, with special "solo-sign-hash:" RP …
stevenwdv 861d783
sign-hash: validate hash length per signature algorithm, check if sig…
stevenwdv d067d94
sign-hash: some cleanup
stevenwdv c26a983
sign-hash: simplify prefix check
stevenwdv fd8033b
Disallow solo-sign-hash RP ID in ctap_get_assertion
stevenwdv File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
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.
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.
no need to check, memcpy with zero length is fine
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.
Normally yes, but I call it with data2 == NULL, which would be UB even with len2 == 0. I could call it passing data1 twice, but I think this is cleaner.
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.
In this case the check should be
if (data2 != NULL)
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.
That's also possible, but personally I think it looks weird because this would make the following a legal call:
Although to be fair, with the current conditional the following is legal:
We could have
if (data2 || len2)
(or maybeif (data && len2)
if we want to be lenient), but in any case it will only matter with invalid parameters.Or maybe I'm missing an advantage of
if (data2)
?