Open masihyeganeh opened 1 year ago
OK, I decided to change my implementation completely.
Sorry, but your comments are outdated now.
Instead of choosing the implementation in the instantiation phase, I decided to go with having two different process_reply
and process_reply_rfc5054
method.
The thing is that RFC5054 calculates M1
(and accordingly M2
) using session_key
(hash of premaster secret) instead of the premaster secret, so I had to define SrpClientVerifierRfc5054
and SrpServerVerifierRfc5054
beside SrpClientVerifier
and SrpServerVerifier
that also returns the session_key
.
We can have this extra field in those structs, but I believe it would be a breaking change.
I leave it to you to decide.
Please review this new code and let me know you like this approach better or not.
Thanks
Added an option to use the implementation in the spec also added an option to omit username when calculating X
It's a draft implementation to start conversation on it. Please let me know what you think about it.
closes #152