Add hqc-kem#281
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Mike Lodder <redmike7@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Lodder <redmike7@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Lodder <redmike7@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Lodder <redmike7@gmail.com>
|
Here's a |
Signed-off-by: Mike Lodder <redmike7@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Lodder <redmike7@gmail.com>
Thanks. Looks like everything is passing now. Once it published I'll update this PR. |
Signed-off-by: Mike Lodder <redmike7@gmail.com>
tob-scott-a
left a comment
tob-scott-a
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ran ct-analyzer on the compiler output and observed only false positives.
|
@mikelodder7 sorry for the belated review, but it looks like it needs a rebase |
Signed-off-by: Mike Lodder <redmike7@gmail.com>
Bumps the pkcs8 version constraint from 0.11.0-rc.11 to 0.11 Signed-off-by: Mike Lodder <redmike7@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Lodder <redmike7@gmail.com>
done |
| // --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ||
| // Provisional OIDs for HQC-KEM | ||
| // | ||
| // FIPS 207 does not yet have assigned OIDs. These are provisional placeholders | ||
| // in the NIST KEM arc (2.16.840.1.101.3.4.4.x). ML-KEM uses .1/.2/.3. | ||
| // These WILL change when NIST assigns official OIDs. | ||
| // --------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Where are these OIDs coming from, or for that matter is there a document or GitHub repo actually defining PKCS#8 for use with HQC?
tarcieri
left a comment
tarcieri
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm going to declare review bankruptcy on this. I'm generally unfamiliar with quite a bit of the math involved here. I had a look through but there's not a lot I feel I can have helpful input on, and this PR has been open for several months.
I made a note about the PKCS#8 support: it may not make sense to have it until there is at least a draft document describing its usage with HQC. But I'll go ahead and land this for now and we can follow up on that.
3 participants
I temporarily added the hybrid-array-patch to prove it works. Once the new hybrid-array has been updated then we can remove this.