5 ms·
I am not sure if this is an actual issue, all auditors that looked at this so far haven’t mentioned this being a problem. But I will have to investigate what t
by dignifiedquire 2y ago
I am not sure if this is an actual issue, all auditors that looked at this so far haven’t mentioned this being a problem. But I will have to investigate what the exact state is.
- woodruffw 2y agoAccording to `git blame`, this was introduced June 2023, i.e. after your audit in 2019. But maybe it was moved from an older piece of the codebase, I didn't dig too deep. (Looks like the IncludeSec folks did a decent job in 2019. Hi Eric!)
- dignifiedquire 2y agoThis was allowed in the rust-rsa crate directly before, which is why it was introduced in that commit.
- woodruffw 2y agoYep, I saw the upstream[1]. However, I misread this: I thought the padding was being done on the cleartext signing side, but this is padding of the signature itself. So there's some malleability here, but it isn't susceptible to DO'1985. I'll update my top-level comment. [1]: https://github.com/RustCrypto/RSA/issues/272 https://github.com/RustCrypto/RSA/issues/272
- dignifiedquire 2y agoThanks, appreciate the careful check!
- junon 2y agoGlad people care to look, that's what matters.