-
Comment by Martin Disch in
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lake/KmAQm0KmDGEBnvQm3ZGwGiLu3LE/
"The draft does a good job of pointing to the right places in RFC 8152, but I still ended up try…
-
I received some comments from developers that had been looking at your solution that you can't handle when the Cose_Sign1 isn't tagged. See my issue https://github.com/ehn-digital-green-development/hc…
-
I received some comments from developers that had been looking at your solution that you can't handle when the Cose_Sign1 isn't tagged. See my issue https://github.com/ehn-digital-green-development/hc…
-
It appears that LU and DK are the only two countries not packaging their COSE in a 18 tag.
Is that intentional ?
dirkx updated
3 years ago
-
To lock down tighter for guaranteed interoperability, I'd say that tag 61 MUST not be used when the carrying protocol between the Attester and Verify is CoAP, that the CoAP content format must be used…
-
The readme mentions Sign and Sign0 cases, while the COSE standard specifies the same differentiation (i.e. either many or 1 recipient), but calls it Sign and Sign1.
In fact the pycose docs and code…
-
There is a bit of confusion about the CBOR-field. SE and RO has added the CBOR-encoding of the payload but BG has added the CBOR-encoding of the entire CWT.
Both are CBOR-encoded, so I blame the te…
-
Is there a way to extract public key with webpki API?
I need it as OpenSSL EcKey struct but access to raw bytes will also fine.
I'm validating my certificates with webpki, but also I need to pass …
ppmag updated
3 years ago
-
Hi all,
We're trying to decrypt a QR-code we received from our instances.
But when I try to decode it. The COSE signature seems to be different.
Shouldn't all COSE signatures be the same across…
-
In the following test vector [method 2 - Static(Initiator)-Sign(Responder)]:
https://github.com/lake-wg/edhoc/blob/c73dc6affe2d7a47fa8eac97be4d4bbd8bd7c667/test-vectors/vectors.txt#L978
The Resp…