Rejecting values where we'd previous called BN_nnmod may have been
overly ambitious. In the long run, all the supported ECC APIs (ECDSA*,
ECDH_compute_key, and probably some additional new ECDH API) will be
using the EC_SCALAR version anyway, so this doesn't really matter.
Change-Id: I79cd4015f2d6daf213e4413caa2a497608976f93
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23584
Commit-Queue: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
|EC_POINT_mul| is almost exclusively used with reduced scalars, with
this exception. This comes from consumers following NIST SP 800-56A
section 5.6.2.3.2. (Though all our curves have cofactor one, so this
check isn't useful.)
Add a test for this so we don't accidentally break it.
Change-Id: I42492db38a1ea03acec4febdd7945c8a3933530a
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23084
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Currently we only check that the underlying EC_METHODs match, which
avoids the points being in different forms, but not that the points are
on the same curves. (We fixed the APIs early on so off-curve EC_POINTs
cannot be created.)
In particular, this comes up with folks implementating Java's crypto
APIs with ECDH_compute_key. These APIs are both unfortunate and should
not be mimicked, as they allow folks to mismatch the groups on the two
multiple EC_POINTs. Instead, ECDH APIs should take the public value as a
byte string.
Thanks also to Java's poor crypto APIs, we must support custom curves,
which makes this particularly gnarly. This CL makes EC_GROUP_cmp work
with custom curves and adds an additional subtle requirement to
EC_GROUP_set_generator.
Annoyingly, this change is additionally subtle because we now have a
reference cycle to hack around.
Change-Id: I2efbc4bd5cb65fee5f66527bd6ccad6b9d5120b9
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/22245
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
This is the last of the non-GTest tests. We never did end up writing
example files or doc.go tooling for them. And probably examples should
be in C++ at this point.
Bug: 129
Change-Id: Icbc43c9639cfed7423df20df1cdcb8c35f23fc1a
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/17669
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
The names in the P-224 code collided with the P-256 code and thus many
of the functions and constants in the P-224 code have been prefixed.
Change-Id: I6bcd304640c539d0483d129d5eaf1702894929a8
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/15847
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
