You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
For background, please see this discussion: #1919 (comment) and related issue #1995.
It may be desirable to modify or extend our signature tests to take into account "weaker" forgeries as well as specific security claims (EUF-CMA vs SUF-CMA).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
If we wanted to thoroughly check trivial forgeries for SUF-CMA, instead of incrementing a single random byte we could have the test flip each bit of a signed message, one at a time, and expect a verification error. I made something similar to investigate #1995, would this be a welcome addition or is it out of scope?
For background, please see this discussion: #1919 (comment) and related issue #1995.
It may be desirable to modify or extend our signature tests to take into account "weaker" forgeries as well as specific security claims (EUF-CMA vs SUF-CMA).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: