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.

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

Algorithm Registration options that should be arrays #280

Open
mmccarl opened this issue Aug 17, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

Algorithm Registration options that should be arrays #280

mmccarl opened this issue Aug 17, 2023 · 1 comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@mmccarl
Copy link

mmccarl commented Aug 17, 2023

Demo and Prod

In the course of generating vectors for customers, we have encountered situations where an implementation supports several options that can't be specified in a single algorithm request but does require that the vector sets generated are within the same test session. For example, an AES-GCM may support both internal or external IV generation with the added option of specifying the generation mode. Because these fields are not defined as arrays, separate algorithm registrations must be created in the request so that the vector sets are within the same test session. Creating separate items in the algorithms array has proven to be error prone and difficult for vendors to understand the reasoning why it needs to be done.

in addition to AES-GCM IV generation, this issue exists for GMAC as well.

There may be other algorithms/options that have a similar issue. I will attempt to add to this issue as they are identified.

@livebe01
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks for mentioning this @mmccarl. We agree, ivGen and ivGenMode should be arrays. I think the cleanest way to address this is to create new versions of the algorithm testing, e.g., ACVP-AES-GCM 2.0. We'll plan to do this for AES-GCM, GMAC, and for some RSA keyGen registration properties as well. We'd like to run through the other algorithms and see if we find anything else that should change. We have some items ahead of this, but we've added it to our queue. Let us know if you find any other related issues.

@jbrock24 jbrock24 added the enhancement New feature or request label Jan 29, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants