Skip to content
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

Message Signing #5

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Message Signing #5

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

SebastienGllmt
Copy link
Contributor

@SebastienGllmt SebastienGllmt commented Aug 27, 2019

EDIT: This has now been standardized as a Cardano Improvement Proposal. See cardano-foundation/CIPs#27

@SebastienGllmt SebastienGllmt added the DO NOT MERGE Don't merge until label is removed label Aug 27, 2019
@SebastienGllmt SebastienGllmt self-assigned this Aug 27, 2019
specs/emip-005.md Show resolved Hide resolved
specs/emip-005.md Show resolved Hide resolved
specs/emip-005.md Show resolved Hide resolved
specs/emip-005.md Show resolved Hide resolved
@storojs72
Copy link

@SebastienGllmt, we have summarized our tasks for Message Signing and Encryption audit:

  1. To evaluate security of algorithm defined in 'Public key based encryption' section. More precisely, to evaluate usage of ephemeral Diffie-Hellman protocol;
  2. To evaluate security of encryption/decryption protocol from https://github.com/Emurgo/yoroi-frontend/blob/737595fec5a89409aacef827d356c9a1605515c0/docs/specs/code/ENCRYPT.md (used on 3d step of 'Public key based encryption');
  3. To evaluate concrete cryptographic primitives - that they are not weak;
  4. ... actually, not sure about list completeness.

@SebastienGllmt
Copy link
Contributor Author

@storojs72

  1. Yes this is correct. Notably we also need to make sure no possible input can lead to leakage of information about the private key (even in client-side)
  2. The ENCRYPT.MD specification was already previously audited independently from its use in this context.
  3. Yes but I would try and avoid going down a rabbit hole on this (ex: assume Extended ED25519 as a primitive is correct and that BIP39 generation is correct since both of these have been previously audited)
  4. The use of unprotected is safe (a man-in-the-middle modifying these always results in an error or invalid structure when processed downstream)

@SebastienGllmt SebastienGllmt removed DO NOT MERGE Don't merge until label is removed Pending Audit labels Sep 29, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants