- From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:49:56 -0800
- To: Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com>
- Cc: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>, public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 5:55 AM, Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com> wrote: > This reminds me that I should have sent an erratum of my erratum sent for > the encryption case related to Issue 22. > > See http://code.google.com/p/crypto-js/issues/detail?id=73#c3 , issue > addressed to cryptoJS and finally accepted. > > And see following issue (clone) : > http://code.google.com/p/crypto-js/issues/detail?id=74 > > This is a real life use case, current implementation of cryptoJS, contrarly > to others, does not process all blocks when it can on "update", then you > have to call "final" which closes the encryptor (same as finish below). > > I don't know who is right or wrong and if there is an official rule for > this, but it does not seem unlogical that cryptoJS "update" returns a > partial result (same as Ryan explained for process/progress results which > are let to the appreciation of the UA), even if other implementations do > return "final". > > But then I can not achieve what I want to do, and I must use a clone method > for this. > > So, Issue 22 can be about encryption too, probably a clone method is needed. I'm sorry Aymeric, but having both read your reply and the bug, I'm having trouble understanding what it is you're actually asking or suggesting is a bug, nor what you're trying to do (or if it even makes sense from a cryptographic security perspective). Could you perhaps try restating?
Received on Friday, 15 February 2013 18:50:28 UTC