Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

TODO: Make integration of Secp256k1.Native more secure. #56

Closed
joemphilips opened this issue Feb 28, 2020 · 2 comments
Closed

TODO: Make integration of Secp256k1.Native more secure. #56

joemphilips opened this issue Feb 28, 2020 · 2 comments
Labels
packaging This issue is related to packaging rather than code itself. Security Issues related to possible security incident.

Comments

@joemphilips
Copy link
Owner

joemphilips commented Feb 28, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Currently, when we build with no BouncyCastle=true flag, we use native bindings for libsecp256k1 (which I have forked to this repo)

To make it more secure, we should either

  1. incorporate the repository into this repo.
  2. stop using my own fork when libsecp256k1 supports deterministic build and stable API versioning (Which seems to be tracked by following issues)
@joemphilips joemphilips added packaging This issue is related to packaging rather than code itself. Security Issues related to possible security incident. labels Feb 28, 2020
@joemphilips joemphilips mentioned this issue Feb 28, 2020
Open
@knocte
Copy link
Collaborator

knocte commented Jun 26, 2020

We using now NBitcoin's secp256k1 right?, so this issue is obsolete and can be closed?

@joemphilips
Copy link
Owner Author

Yep.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
packaging This issue is related to packaging rather than code itself. Security Issues related to possible security incident.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@knocte @joemphilips