Correct descriptions of M1 & M2 per RFC 5054 #163
Conversation
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
As far as I can tell from the code, what is defined as: > key = compute_premaster_secret(...) does not include the given hash invocation step. While RFC 5054 is unclearly worded (see comment below), SRP-6 is clear that M1 should not include K = H(S) and thus this description of the protocol is incorrect. As far as I can tell, nobody else uses this computation of M1 (with K = H(S) as a parameter) and thus it should be dropped from the tabular and comment descriptions. See also: bcgit/bc-csharp#506 (comment) Signed-off-by: Alexander Scheel <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As far as I can tell from the code, what is defined as:
does not include the given hash invocation step. While RFC 5054 is unclearly worded (see comment below), SRP-6 is clear that
M1should not includeK = H(S)and thus this description of the protocol is incorrect. As far as I can tell, nobody else uses this computation ofM1(withK = H(S)as a parameter) and thus it should be dropped from the tabular and comment descriptions.See also: bcgit/bc-csharp#506 (comment)
Edit to add: regardless of which spec is deemed correct or supported or implemented (SPR-6 or RFC 2945) -- it is clear that
M1 = H(A, B, H(S))is not aligning with either of those two, and also (I believe) wasn't implemented in the code.