Update blowfish imprementation to latest version #182
Merged
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
|
build was timing out on rbx-3 while installing gems, it seems this did the trick |
|
@tjschuck @tenderlove any chance someone will look at this? (Not sure if there are any active maintainers on the repo) |
tjschuck
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 8, 2018
These were deleted in #182, but are a part of the Openwall test vectors. They’re important because they’re actually making the string longer than 72 characters, which is the test that the vector is going for.
tjschuck
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 9, 2018
tjschuck
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 9, 2018
These were deleted in #182, but are a part of the Openwall test vectors. They’re important because they’re actually making the string longer than 72 characters, which is the test that the vector is going for.
|
👏 👏 |
This was referenced Nov 13, 2018
tjschuck
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 13, 2018
These were deleted in #182, but are a part of the Openwall test vectors. They’re important because they’re actually making the string longer than 72 characters, which is the test that the vector is going for.
tjschuck
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 15, 2018
These were deleted in #182, but are a part of the Openwall test vectors. They’re important because they’re actually making the string longer than 72 characters, which is the test that the vector is going for.
tjschuck
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 15, 2018
These were deleted in #182, but are a part of the Openwall test vectors. They’re important because they’re actually making the string longer than 72 characters, which is the test that the vector is going for.
@fonica would this fix make it so that secrets hashed with older gem versions produce a different hash than the one produced by this new, fixed version in some cases? If so, how common would those cases be do you think? |
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.
Changes:
lib/bcrypt/engine.rbto pass the secret as java bytes; it seems jruby messes up the encoding for certain bytes if the secret is passed as a string.This should help close some old PRs and issues addressing this problem. The main one I think is PR #91