-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 460
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
RFC 6979 conformance #51
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
42a75a2
to
e29363a
Compare
e29363a
to
29c8d1b
Compare
I am not opposed to including strict RFC 6979 conformance for verification purposes, as long as it is #ifdef'd out by default (ie, have a STRICT_RFC_6769 macro). I would suggest that you implement bits2octets and bits2int as separate functions; that will make the implementation clearer. |
I can refactor and rebase the RFC6979 code onto the runtime branch within a Please note that We can write a
but we must compute
|
Hi. After understanding how RFC6979 actually works, I'd like to propose a small change to make the PRNG in
uECC_sign_deterministic
conform to RFC6979 for those implemented curves except secp160r1, without messing withbits2octets
.In addition to two local buffers of length ~
uECC_BYTES
bytes, only one vli_ modular reduction (t <- t mod n
), onevli_nativeToBytes
function call, and onevli_bytesToNative
function call must need to be added. I think the increase in signing time and code size is negligible.