you also use the CPU cache size on GNU/Linux. Is it important to have that information on MS-Windows?
- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
Advanced Search
Mar 31 2022
The attached patch implements getting the number of processors on MS-Windows.
Mar 30 2022
see rC67b36154f88e for master.
Will add it. The reason I added Brainpool was due to a question on the performacne between Brainpool and other NIST.
Mar 29 2022
Done in master to be 1.11 for server side rC754ad5815b5b: random: Remove use of experimental random daemon.
Done in 1.10.1.
Mar 28 2022
Mar 24 2022
GetNativeSystemInfo. Would you like me to submit a patch that used that in jent_ncpu?
Mar 23 2022
Yes, I see the problem:
In libgcrypt (1.10), we have a copy of the jitterentropy 3.3.0 from:
http://www.chronox.de/jent.html
or https://github.com/smuellerDD/jitterentropy-library
Mar 22 2022
Let me ask a more specific question, since you mentioned "support of detecting numbers of CPU and having more than 1 CPUs": can you point me to the code which detects the number of CPUs on MS-Windows systems, where I could learn how that code is affected by having EOPNOTSUPP defined? I will then hopefully understand better what you are saying, and either agree with you that this is unworkable on Windows, or propose a better solution.
Can you please tell more about how this causes non-working code? MinGW64 defines EOPNOTSUPP to an arbitrary constant which (AFAICT) is never actually returned or used in the MS-Windows runtime. Their documentation, in https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/c-runtime-library/errno-constants?view=msvc-170, says:
I had thought that we need to combine hkdf so that key and iv can generate within libgcrypt internally.
Probably, this assumption of mine may be wrong.
Thank you for your report.
Mar 16 2022
Mar 14 2022
Thanks for you patches. Most of them applied cleanly despite that I delayed processing them for half a year.
Mar 12 2022
Mar 9 2022
Mar 8 2022
You are combining two concepts here -- the KDF and the AEAD cipher itself (at least from the FIPS terminology). I would like to avoid mixing these two together in the new API. If you would like to implement the SSH/TLS KDF, I would suggest to use the kdf API you already have. Then we are here left only with a new geniv API to implement. In the T4873 I mentioned example how it is now used in libssh using libgcrypt, which implements the iv increment outside of the libgcrypt:
Mar 7 2022
Is large change to cipher API really needed (new open/encrypt with less flexibility)? How that would affect performance? Would following new interfaces to gcry_cipher API work instead?
- gcry_cipher_setup_geniv(hd, int ivlen, int method): for setting up IV generator with parameters such as IV length, method id (RFC5116, TLS 1.3, SSH, etc), (other parameters?)
- gcry_cipher_geniv(hd, byte *outiv): for generating new iv: generate IV using select method, set IV internally and output generated IV to 'ivout'.
- gcry_cipher_genkey(hd, byte *outkey, int keylen, int method): for generating keys, generate key internally with parameters (method id, other?), setup key internally and output generated key to 'outkey'. (how keys from key exchange protocol be handled? using existing setkey?)
Mar 6 2022
Mar 5 2022
Mar 3 2022
I think this is not urgent as we are able to FIPS certify libgcrypt without that, but the modern protocols and algorithm use this and if we want to use libgcrypt to implement these in FIPS compliant way, we certainly need something like that.
I don't think it is justified to tag this as "unbreak now" - which we use for severe bugs inhibiting the use of a deployed version.
Mar 2 2022
Feb 24 2022
Feb 23 2022
Feb 18 2022
Feb 17 2022
I simplified the script not to use cmp: rC3c8b6c4a9cad: fips: Fix gen-note-integrity.sh script not to use cmp utility.
And I clarified the semantics of the integrity check.
Ah, right, I can get that added to the containers tomorrow.
I located the cause:
../../src/gen-note-integrity.sh: line 78: cmp: command not found
Feb 16 2022
That only seems to work in some configurations: https://gitlab.com/redhat-crypto/libgcrypt/libgcrypt-mirror/-/pipelines/472626834
I pushed the change: rCa340e9803882: fips: More portable integrity check.
It uses .note.fdo.integrity section, not loaded onto memory.
It simplifies the logic, and switches to dladdr (from dladdr1).
Pushed the change which fixes the build with ld.gold.
rC9dcf9305962b: fips: Integrity check improvement, with only loadable segments.
Thank you for your suggestions, @werner.
I agree that we should not put much effort to develop our own methodology here; Too much effort may introduce possibility of unmaintainable code, which should be avoided for the particular purpose of "integrity".
Feb 15 2022
Folks, you are opening a can of worms. The only secure why to sign a file is to have a detached signature. That is often non-practical and thus putting the signature/MAC at one certain position and exempt just this one position from hashing is the next best alternative. Any more complicated rules will inevitably introduce security flaws. If a binary is stripped, it is a different binary than a non-stripped one, if it is linked with another linker, it is a different one. And that binary will even be able to figure this out and change behavior. Please keep it simple.
Thanks! Maybe it would be simpler to use dl_iterate_phdr(3) for this. I wasn't aware of the function, but a colleague just implemented a proof-of-concept of what you're proposing in https://gitlab.com/dueno/integrity-notes.
I am going to apply https://gitlab.com/redhat-crypto/libgcrypt/libgcrypt-mirror/-/commit/64ccc25c4b4a2c8c4e13e7e37ff1c8c60a3d8401
And consider adding the code to limit hashing content (from start of the file to end of data section).
Feb 10 2022
It was addressed in rC04f325d8917d: released 1.1.4 as "(obsolete)" feature, in Aug 2001.
Feb 9 2022
Instead, let us remove the feature.
Feb 8 2022
Tested on a big endian machine.
$ uname -a Linux perotto 5.15.0-2-powerpc64 #1 SMP Debian 5.15.5-2 (2021-12-18) ppc64 GNU/Linux
Feb 7 2022
Feb 2 2022
it will be but we first prefer to do some final tests with that version. Feel free to also test. Either this or the next micro version will eventually be announced.
Hi there, is this the new stable version of libgcrypt? Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask; I just couldn’t find any other release announcement for 1.10.0.