OAEP bug fix for non-deterministically failing on decryption #11
Conversation
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
|
Thanks for the contribution. This PR has been merged with some additional tests. Thanks again MW |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Bug fix for "RSA with OAEP fails nondeterministically" issue (reported at PointyCastle/pointycastle#177 on the old repository before the management of Pointy Castle was moved over to under the Bouncy Castle project).
This also solves the mystery of the redundant code from Bouncy Castle. Bouncy Castle's RSA decryption method returns a new array and the code then copied it into a new block. Pointy Castle creates a block and passes it into the RSA decryption method to populate, so no copying was/is required. But the Bouncy Castle code does more than just copying the bytes: it is also taking care of the situation when the decrypted bytes is shorter than expected.
Note: the encryption code was correct. Only the decryption code had a bug.