Improve validation of algorithm identifiers in keys and signatures#5689
Draft
randombit wants to merge 1 commit into
Draft
Improve validation of algorithm identifiers in keys and signatures#5689randombit wants to merge 1 commit into
randombit wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Some key types would for example completely ignore the OIDs in passed algorithm identifiers, on the assumption they were being called from one of the decoder factory functions. Likewise in some contexts where the algorithm identifier parameters are unused, any junk in there would be silently ignored. Also there were some cases where either NULL or absent parameters was accepted, even though the relevant standard specifically requires one or the other.
randombit
marked this pull request as draft
June 24, 2026 10:17
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Some key types would for example completely ignore the OIDs in passed algorithm identifiers, on the assumption they were being called from one of the decoder factory functions. Likewise in some contexts where the algorithm identifier parameters are unused, any junk in there would be silently ignored.
Also there were some cases where either NULL or absent parameters was accepted, even though the relevant standard specifically requires one or the other.