Closed eranmes closed 7 years ago
I think we should merge PR #953 first, as that ecdsa module has issues and we'd be better off not expanding its use.
To follow up:
So I think we should stay with the ecdsa package here for now.
That's a shame. I've filed an issue with OpenSSL to track this (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/2078). I guess the ecdsa package is the best option we have.
@RJPercival PTAL.
Add a module for producing ECDSA signatures that are suitable for use in CT log implementations (both 6962 and 6962-bis):
This is necessary for a reference implementation of a 6962-bis log.