[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-bugs] #18875 [Metrics/metrics-lib]: Consider replacing RelayNetworkStatusVote's getDirectorySignatures() with getDirectorySignature()
#18875: Consider replacing RelayNetworkStatusVote's getDirectorySignatures() with
getDirectorySignature()
---------------------------------+------------------------------
Reporter: karsten | Owner: karsten
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: Medium | Milestone:
Component: Metrics/metrics-lib | Version:
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: | Actual Points:
Parent ID: #19398 | Points:
Reviewer: | Sponsor:
---------------------------------+------------------------------
Comment (by iwakeh):
Assuming we don't verify the algorithm strings then your implementation is
fine.
I have another question:
The [https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/dir-spec.txt#n2044
dir-spec, line 2044ff] states that currently there can be two types of
algorithms. With the reasoning above (comment:3) won't there be the
situation that some provide sha1, some sha256, others both? If so, the
signing key digest would be null for the non-default version, even though
there is a signing key, i.e. collector/metrics-lib only provides the
[https://gitweb.torproject.org/user/karsten/metrics-
lib.git/tree/src/org/torproject/descriptor/impl/RelayNetworkStatusVoteImpl.java?h=task-18875&id=9a25bac82726e567bc1885d7d431b652d9217a84#n610
signing key digest] of the default algorithm, is that intended?
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/18875#comment:8>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs