Closed jonmon6691 closed 1 month ago
I looked a little deeper into the difference in the draft spec and the released version and it seems like this will not be a trivial change to the crate.
FIPS 205 Relevant changes mentioned in the federal register announcement (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/08/14/2024-17956/announcing-issuance-of-federal-information-processing-standards-fips-fips-203-module-lattice-based#:~:text=Based%20on%20comments%20that%20were,of%20the%20message%20is%20signed.)
My perceived checklist of changes needed to bring the codebase up to the current standard:
Non-impact to the implementation
I've forked the repo to work on this but I think I might be out of my depth when it comes to adding the pre-hashed variants. I welcome feedback, or encouragement :)
Hi @jonmon6691 - thanks for looking into this! Updating this crate to the latest spec is on my short list and shouldn't be too far off. I finished the update to FIPS 203 a few days back and have started on 204. This one is next (and likely has some similar items). Also, there is some supporting code that needs to be reworked/rechecked too.
As for feedback/encouragement, I am interested in understanding your usage better - it might help if I get faced with a decision...
No problem, I'm mostly interested in getting my hands dirty with the standard, and I have to say, I really appreciate how nicely your code base mirrors the spec. I have some plans to use this crate to prototype an embedded CAN device that authenticates peers with PQC signed certificates, but for now I'm just trying to wrap my head around FIPS 205.
I just made a commit on #2 after fully reviewing the defined algorithms and it looks like there aren't any more changes hiding in the woodwork other than what I already foresaw.
Currently I'm a little stuck on how to prepend data to the message before hashing which is newly required in the released standard. The obvious way is to allocate a buffer and write in the prefix followed by the message but that's not real slick and doesn't align with the current crate promise that it doesn't allocate. Also it could be a whole lot of memory if m is large. I don't know if you already tackled this issue in the other changes you've made to update 203 and 204 but I'm open to ideas.
Hi @jonmon6691 thanks for your kind words. I haven't yet looked into the FIPS 205 changes in detail, but I suspect there may be some similarities to FIPS 204 changes which I have started upon. If you are referring to something like step 8 in algorithm 22 (of FIPS 205) then have a look at https://github.com/integritychain/fips204/blob/main/src/ml_dsa.rs#L131 - I avoid prepending/assembling stuff by running the fragments through the hash function. Hope that helps. I'll have some time to jump in and help here shortly...
Fyi, getting close now...
The code has been updated to align with the final/released FIPS 205 specification and is now published as v0.4.0. I did not update the major version as it currently sits at 0 (a special case for SemVer), despite some enhancements to the public API (which now nearly aligns to the FIPS 204 crate). I expect to continue polishing (e.g., fuzzing, an embedded target example, update WASM, etc) in preparation for a review that would then see it updated to v1.0.0. @jonmon6691 - thank you for your help and diligence on this!
FIPS 205 was officially released about 4 weeks ago. A new release of this project to update the readme and address any changes (if any) from the draft to the official release would add confidence to users of the crate that it was up to date with the standard.