Privacy Pass - Discrepancy between comment and implementation #58

Open
opened 2024-05-15 17:25:03 +00:00 by soatok · 1 comment

Glancing through the code, I noticed a small nit.

https://git.openprivacy.ca/cwtch.im/tapir/src/branch/master/primitives/privacypass/dlogeq.go#L23
// s := (t + ck) mod q

https://git.openprivacy.ca/cwtch.im/tapir/src/branch/master/primitives/privacypass/dlogeq.go#L44
// s := (t - ck) mod q

Since we're working over the Ristretto group, I don't think addition and subtraction are equivalent.

Glancing through the code, I noticed a small nit. https://git.openprivacy.ca/cwtch.im/tapir/src/branch/master/primitives/privacypass/dlogeq.go#L23 // s := (t + ck) mod q https://git.openprivacy.ca/cwtch.im/tapir/src/branch/master/primitives/privacypass/dlogeq.go#L44 // s := (t - ck) mod q Since we're working over the Ristretto group, I don't think addition and subtraction are equivalent.
Owner

Nice spot. Looks like the comment is wrong. The original proof subtracts - see section 3.3 https://www.petsymposium.org/2018/files/papers/issue3/popets-2018-0026.pdf

The verification would fail otherwise. I'll update the comment.

Nice spot. Looks like the comment is wrong. The original proof subtracts - see section 3.3 https://www.petsymposium.org/2018/files/papers/issue3/popets-2018-0026.pdf The verification would fail otherwise. I'll update the comment.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Label
No Milestone
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: cwtch.im/tapir#58
No description provided.