Ot base implementation from Chou Orlandi with fixes

[Gugi264]

Closes #388

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #389 (4733c66) into master (16cda54) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

❗ Current head 4733c66 differs from pull request most recent head f6d67d9. Consider uploading reports for the commit f6d67d9 to get more accurate results

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##              master      #389   +/-   ##
===========================================
  Coverage     100.00%   100.00%           
- Complexity      3618      3640   +22     
===========================================
  Files            408       411    +3     
  Lines          10209     10290   +81     
  Branches         776       780    +4     
===========================================
+ Hits           10209     10290   +81     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
.../alexandra/fresco/tools/ot/base/BigIntElement.java	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...exandra/fresco/tools/ot/base/BigIntNaorPinkas.java	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...lexandra/fresco/demo/cli/CmdLineProtocolSuite.java	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...ra/fresco/tools/ot/base/AbstractChouOrlandiOT.java	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...dra/fresco/tools/ot/base/AbstractNaorPinkasOT.java	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...xandra/fresco/tools/ot/base/BigIntChouOrlandi.java	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
.../fresco/tools/ot/base/BouncyCastleChouOrlandi.java	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...a/fresco/tools/ot/base/BouncyCastleECCElement.java	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...a/fresco/tools/ot/base/BouncyCastleNaorPinkas.java	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...dk/alexandra/fresco/lib/fixed/math/Reciprocal.java	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 8 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 16cda54...f6d67d9. Read the comment docs.

[jot2re]

As discussed in the comments on issue #388 I unfortunately have to reject the PR.

[jot2re]

After more discussion with Claudio Orlandi, I realised that the amount of changes to make the protocol secure are really minimal. Thus I think it still makes sense to merge it.
I am really sorry for being too quick to reject the PR previously.
I understand that you probably don't have time to implement the suggestions at this point. If not, I will probably just do it myself.

[Gugi264]

Hi, what are the necessary changes? If they are really only small I can implement them.

[jot2re]

Hi, what are the necessary changes? If they are really only small I can implement them.

In relation to https://eprint.iacr.org/2021/1218 they are minimal. But as mentioned in the comments, there are a few other things that should be added. I think the easiest is if I just do it, since it is fresh in my mind anyway :)

[Gugi264]

Ok :)

[jot2re]

@quacktiamauct can you implement the changes I have requested?

[jot2re]

There are still a lot of security issues from the previous review that has not been addressed.
I have fixed some of them and explicitly written down the remaining issues and how to fix them

[jot2re]

Look good. I think the only issue is that there is not full coverage with the current tests. If you could add a couple of tests to ensure this (so the CI/CD won't complain once it gets merged) that would be great