-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Remove neg parameter; always check with both signs; adjust blacklist
- Loading branch information
Showing
4 changed files
with
7 additions
and
28 deletions.
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
afabd7e
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.
This change will cause a problem for Zcash in upgrading to libsodium 1.0.16 (we're currently on 1.0.15). Any change in which signatures are considered valid can potentially be used to provoke a Zcash chain fork. We can work around it by reverting this patch, but that's obviously not ideal for maintenance. Is it possible to have a LIBSODIUM_STABLE_VALIDATION #define that would disable any changes like this?
afabd7e
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.
Filed #662, since this is probably easier to keep track of as an issue.
afabd7e
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.
This turns out not to affect which points are valid. (The motivation is to avoid certain side channel attacks, for which it matters that low-order points are rejected before the scalar multiplication. They were rejected afterward in any case.)