There was a vulnerability reported[0] in zeroize which is patches with
versions >=1.2.0. This patch sets the bound to "1.2" in the Cargo.toml.
[0]: https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2021-0115
Signed-off-by: Fintan Halpenny <fintan.halpenny@gmail.com>
* Implement ZIP 215 validation rules.
These have the effect that batched and singleton verification are now
equivalent.
* Add ZIP 215 conformance tests.
This test constructs signatures on the message "Zcash" using small-order
verification keys, some with canonical and some with non-canonical encodings of
points. All of these signatures should pass verification under the ZIP 215
rules, but most of them should fail verification under legacy rules.
These tests exercise all of the special-case behaviors from the specific
version of libsodium used by Zcashd:
* the all-zero check for the verification key;
* the excluded point encodings for the signature's R value;
* the choice to test equality of the encoded bytes of the recomputed R value
rather than on the projective coordinates of the two points.
Running
```
cargo test -- --nocapture
```
will print a hex-formatted list of the test cases, which can also be found here:
https://gist.github.com/hdevalence/93ed42d17ecab8e42138b213812c8cc7
* Update spec links.
Thanks to @ebfull for pointing this out.
* No ... there is another.
@ebfull pointed out that two test cases were duplicates. The cause was that I
misread the RFC8032 check was checking for the non-canonical encoding of
the identity point that NCC Group apparently brought up. Carefully analyzing all
the cases instead of assuming reveals there is another non-canonically encoded
point (of order 2).
* Change formatting of printed test cases.
The futures-based batch verification design is still good, but it turns out
that things like the latency bounds and control of when to flush the batch
should be common across different kinds of batchable verification. This should
be done by the forthcoming `tower-batch` middleware currently in the Zebra
repo.
This will hopefully allow things like building a Tower layer with a timeout and
a retry policy that retries timed out requests (not a big enough concurrent
batch) with singleton verification, or retries a failed batch by falling back
to singleton verification to detect which element of a batch failed.
However, there are still some rough spots in the API, and it's not clear that
manually dropping the service is an adequate way to flush requests (see comment).
This implements the last suggestion in the previous commit message: the
verification service maintains a target batch size and periodically flushes
signature verification requests after reaching that many pending requests.
Requests can be manually flushed by dropping the service. In contrast to
flushing requests by calling an inherent method, this approach has the
advantage that the verification service can be wrapped in other tower
middleware without losing functionality (drops propagate through wrapped
services).
This approach still does not impose any maximum latency on verification
requests, but it seems potentially better to leave that out of scope for the
verification service itself, as consumers wishing to have latency bounds can do
so using a timeout layer, perhaps with a retry policy that does singleton
verification after a timeout, etc.
In fact the speedup can be slightly greater than the 2x predicted, because
although the multiexp is half the size, the remaining half has 128-bit scalars
instead of 256-bit ones.
This commit incidentally includes an optimization for batch verification that
improves performance when verifying multiple signatures from the same public
key.
I'm not totally happy with a few things about this API, however. Currently,
the actual batch computation is performed only when the inherent `finalize()`
method is called on the service. However, this doesn't work well with `tower`
layering, because once the service is wrapped, the inherent method is no longer
available. Another option would be for the batching service to be created with
a batch size parameter, automatically resolving the batch computation whenever
the batch size was reached. This improves latency but does not solve the
problem of finalizing the batch, since unless there's guaranteed to be a
constant stream of verification requests, a tail of requests may be left
unresolved. A third option would be for the service to return some kind of
control handle on creation that would allow shutdown via a channel or
something, but this is also unsatisfying because it means that the service has
to be listening for a shutdown signal. A fourth option would be to have a
batch size parameter but customize the `Drop` impl to finalize all pending
requests on drop; this would potentially allow "flushing" pending requests by
manually dropping the service in a way that would still be possible when using
tower wrappers.
Deirdre Connolly
Conrado Gouvea
Christian Poveda
dependabot[bot]
Fintan Halpenny
Deirdre Connolly
Kim Altintop
Henry de Valence
dependabot-preview[bot]