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
I guess there should also be some tests that test the kem interface against KATs, since this would have detected the breakage introduced before.
Happy new year ! Thanks a lot for this suggestion @dkales, today I took some time to go through the current katkem tests we have and I was thinking about implementing the tests for the kem interface against KATs.
However first I need some clarification, the existing test_crypto_kem_api uses keypair_boxed() and the kem designated try_encap() and try_decap() functions which would be assumed to break on a byte number mismatch of CryptoCiphertextBytesTypenum != CRYPTO_CIPHERTEXTBYTES
these kem functions are unrelated/separate concerns in comparison to the described heap feature keypair_boxed(), encapsulate_boxed(), decapsulate_boxed() which currently are also not tested so far ?
Concerning implementing the tests for the kem interface against KATs, I was thinking about options:
one possibility would be to augment the Testcase struct with separate public key, secret key, ciphertext and sharedsecret bytes for the kem feature, allowing us to run the kem function calls () inside the already existing verify, create_request_file and create_response_file functions without code duplication.
the other option would be to run the kem_feature tests separately which, would need basically the same other asserts and file I/O functions as the already existing ones, having some code duplication
If possible I would love to hear some feedback on my initial thoughts :)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
However first I need some clarification, the existing test_crypto_kem_api uses keypair_boxed() and the kem designated try_encap() and try_decap() functions which would be assumed to break on a byte number mismatch of CryptoCiphertextBytesTypenum != CRYPTO_CIPHERTEXTBYTES
Not really true. As you acknowledged in #39 (comment)
It still makes sense to run as many tests as possible via the kem API. but I don't think this needs to block #33 and a release of the round4 algorithms.
Happy new year ! Thanks a lot for this suggestion @dkales, today I took some time to go through the current katkem tests we have and I was thinking about implementing the tests for the kem interface against KATs.
However first I need some clarification, the existing test_crypto_kem_api useskeypair_boxed()
and the kem designatedtry_encap()
andtry_decap()
functions which would be assumed to break on a byte number mismatch ofCryptoCiphertextBytesTypenum != CRYPTO_CIPHERTEXTBYTES
these
kem
functions are unrelated/separate concerns in comparison to the described heap featurekeypair_boxed(), encapsulate_boxed(), decapsulate_boxed()
which currently are also not tested so far ?Concerning implementing the tests for the kem interface against KATs, I was thinking about options:
one possibility would be to augment the Testcase struct with separate public key, secret key, ciphertext and sharedsecret bytes for the kem feature, allowing us to run the kem function calls () inside the already existing
verify
,create_request_file
andcreate_response_file
functions without code duplication.the other option would be to run the kem_feature tests separately which, would need basically the same other asserts and file I/O functions as the already existing ones, having some code duplication
If possible I would love to hear some feedback on my initial thoughts :)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: