feat: multiple plaintext authentication#91
Conversation
lonerapier
changed the title
|
Can you make an updated diagram for this version? |
Autoparallel
left a comment
Autoparallel
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me. Given tests are all passing and this is being integrated into web prover, we will know with certainty this all works.
Please see my comments, especially about versioning. Let me know if you want to meet!
| @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ | |||
| pragma circom 2.1.9; | |||
|
|
|||
| function log2Ceil(a) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this could be used in the JSON parser/machine. I have a comment about it in there actually.
lonerapier
force-pushed
the
feat/multiple-plaintext-authentication
branch
from
5b1ac19 to
53d33e1
Compare
Autoparallel
left a comment
Autoparallel
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added more comments
| } | ||
|
|
||
| step_out[0] <== step_in[0] + body_digest_hashed - accumulated_main_digests_hashed - data_digest_hashed; // TODO: data_digest is really plaintext_digest from before, consider changing names | ||
| step_out[0] <== step_in[0] + body_digest_hashed - accumulated_main_digests_hashed - pt_digest; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Need to hash pt_digest?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah, i had thought about that, but then how do we calculate pt_digest_hash in authentication circuit?
my reasoning to just use digest and not hash was because all others were hashes, so you'd still have to find preimage of those to cancel these?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah, because of the different components...
Okay, I see.
Can you please make some issues on some of these potential security problems like this we're introducing? Then I'm good to sign off on this..
|
high level review lgtm, I'll defer to colin for deeper comments. |
3 participants
closes #89
closes #80