Commit 0cc07943 authored by Peter Schwabe's avatar Peter Schwabe
Browse files

Some more small changes to rebuttal.

parent a7d1882d
......@@ -5,15 +5,15 @@ brief answers to specific comments.
---------------------------- Answers to questions ----------------------------
REVIEW 1:
REVIEW A:
* What made TweetNaCl the right choice for this project?
One goal of the project was to investigate how suitable the combination of
VST+Coq is for verifying correctness of existing C code for asymmetric
primitives. The X25519 implementation in TweetNaCl was chosen because it is
relatively simple, it has some real-world use cases, and the original paper
claims that the library should be verifiable.
crypto primitives. The X25519 implementation in TweetNaCl was chosen because
it is relatively simple, it has some real-world use cases, and the original
paper claims that the library should be verifiable.
* Would following the same approach for other implementation radically change
the proof effort?
......@@ -21,7 +21,8 @@ REVIEW 1:
We would expect that the proof effort for another C implementation of X25519
does not change drastically, as long as it does not use any features that are
not supported by VST (e.g., the 128-bit integers used by the donna64
implementation).
implementation). The proof relating the RFC to the mathematical definition
does not change for other implementations.
* Does compiling TweetNaCl with CompCert rather than gcc impact the performance
beyond what is acceptable?
......@@ -42,9 +43,10 @@ REVIEW 1:
massively expands the TCB and should be reason for concern.
REVIEW 2: No questions
REVIEW B: No specific questions; we agree with the comments and will make the
requested changes.
REVIEW 3:
REVIEW C:
* Changed code, i64 -> int, but the size of `int` depends on architecture
......
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment