Change to better distinguish signature schemes #19
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ureeves
requested review from
ZER0,
HDauven,
xevisalle,
moCello,
marta-belles and
herr-seppia
ureeves
force-pushed
the
rename-sign-vulnerable
branch
from
25a680e to
1954cc2
Compare
xevisalle
approved these changes
Aug 1, 2024
| derive(Archive, Deserialize, Serialize), | ||
| archive_attr(derive(bytecheck::CheckBytes)) | ||
| )] | ||
| pub struct MultisigSignature(pub(crate) G1Affine); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Doesn't feel redundant to call it Multi signature signature?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel like I would then also have to change the name of MultisigPublicKey to have the pair of:
MultiPublicKeyMultiSignature
I don't like it though, since the concept of "multi-sig" refers specifically to the scheme, not the structure, and erasing it would kind of defeat the purpose of this PR.
It is currently possible to call `APK::verify` or `PublicKey::verify` on the same signature type, leading to situations where even if a user is technically *allowed* to call the function, verification is in principle impossible, since the signature schemes used to produce a signature are different. Furthermore, the `sign_vulnerable` function is arguably misnamed, since it is only actually vulnerable to a rogue key attack *when used in a multi-signature context*. In the interest of fixing this, this commit introduces a couple of changes to the API of the crate, designed to better distinguish and clarify the usage of the two different signature schemes it provides. First and foremost, a new signature type - `MultisigSignature` is added, representing a signature produced using the multi-signature scheme. Conversely, the already existing `Signature` type is taken to mean the a signature produced using the single-key scheme. The functions under `SecretKey`, `sign_vulnerable` and `sign`, are respectively renamed into `sign` and `sign_multisig`, and the latter is changed to return the new `MultisigSignature` type. The "aggregated public key" type is renamed from `APK` into `MultisigPublicKey`, to better denote its use and to be in line with the kind signature it can now verify using the `verify` function - which is changed to take a `MultisigSignature`. On a more subtle note, the `From<&PublicKey>` and `From<&SecretKey>` implementations for `MultisigPublicKey`, formerly `APK` are removed and the API of `MultisigPublicKey::aggregate` is changed to *not* take `&self`, and only take a slice of `PublicKey`. This is designed to promote the intended usage of the struct - aggregating a collection of public keys, as opposed to just "aggregating" one. Resolves: #18
ureeves
force-pushed
the
rename-sign-vulnerable
branch
from
1954cc2 to
d428201
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
It is currently possible to call the
APK::verifyorPublicKey::verifyon the same signature type, leading to situations where even if a user is technically allowed to call the function, verification is in principle impossible, since the signature schemes used to produce a signature are different. Furthermore, thesign_vulnerablefunction is arguably misnamed, since it is only actually vulnerable to a rogue key attack when used in a multi-signature context.In the interest of fixing this, this commit introduces a couple of changes to the API of the crate, designed to better distinguish and clarify the usage of the two different signature schemes it provides.
First and foremost, a new signature type -
MultisigSignatureis added, representing a signature produced using the multi-signature scheme. Conversely, the already existingSignaturetype is taken to mean the a signature produced using the single-key scheme.The functions under
SecretKey,sign_vulnerableandsign, are respectivelly renamed intosignandsign_multisig, and the latter is changed to return the newMultisigSignaturetype. The "aggregated public key" type is renamed fromAPKintoMultisigPublicKey, to better denote its use and to be in line with the kind signature it can now verify using theverifyfunction - which is changed to take aMultisigSignature.On a more subtle note, the
From<&PublicKey>andFrom<&SecretKey>implementations forMultisigPublicKey, formerlyAPKare removed and the API ofMultisigPublicKey::aggregateis changed to not take&self, and only take a slice ofPublicKey. This is designed to promote the intended usage of the struct - aggregating a collection of public keys, as opposed to just "aggregating" one.Resolves: #18