added PKCSv1 2.2 PSS and SHA3-224 support #204
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
|
To clarify, this PR only adds API support. If this PR is approved then I will be happy to work on extending the CLI to support PSS. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I saw that there was interest in supporting a more recent version of PKCS1 in some discussion in #68. I decided to give it a try. I noticed that someone was already working on OAEP in #126, so I chose PSS. PSS is in version 2.1 and the latest is 2.2. I also looked at 2.2, which adds SHA-224, SHA-512/224, and SHA-512/256. I noticed that SHA-224 is already in
pkcs1, but SHA3-224 is not, so I added that too. I could not add SHA-512/224 or SHA-512/256 becausehashlibdoesn't have those. There's discussion about adding them though which I reference in the code!Version 2.1 also adds multi-prime RSA, and I would be happy to work on implementing that too! Also, I didn't look closely at #126, but I hope the author there knows that OAEP in version 2.1 is incompatible with version 2.0. Should we support both?