Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Botan 3.2.0: Prepare Documents for Submission #143

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Oct 11, 2023
Merged

Conversation

reneme
Copy link
Collaborator

@reneme reneme commented Oct 9, 2023

Botan 3.2.0 was released today (09th October 2023). This adds final touches to the documents prior to the submission.
This includes:

Probably it makes sense to go through the individual commits of this pull request.

closes #108.

Copy link
Collaborator

@FAlbertDev FAlbertDev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some grammar nitpicks. The content looks good to me 👍

docs/audit_report/src/01_generic_changes.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/audit_report/src/01_generic_changes.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/audit_report/src/01_generic_changes.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/audit_report/src/02_security_issues.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/audit_report/src/01_generic_changes.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@reneme reneme force-pushed the doc/changes_regarding_ap5 branch from 1d32ee5 to c918204 Compare October 10, 2023 15:23
@reneme reneme force-pushed the doc/changes_regarding_ap5 branch from 1966c52 to d18b05a Compare October 10, 2023 15:30
@reneme reneme force-pushed the doc/changes_regarding_ap5 branch from d18b05a to 86bc57c Compare October 11, 2023 09:02
@reneme reneme requested a review from FAlbertDev October 11, 2023 09:12
Comment on lines 53 to 66
components. For the library implementation itself (``src/lib``), all modules
that are *required* or *available* in the BSI build policy and their
dependencies are in the scope of this document. Additionally, we review the
following modules and its dependencies: ``aes_armv8``, ``aes_ni``,
``aes_power8``, ``aes_vperm``, ``argon2_avx2``, ``argon2_ssse3``,
``certstor_flatfile``, ``certstor_sql``, ``certstor_sqlite3``,
``certstor_system``, ``certstor_system_macos``, ``certstor_system_windows``,
``dilithium``, ``dilithium_aes``, ``ffi``, ``ghash_cpu``, ``ghash_vperm``,
``keccak_perm_bmi2``, ``kyber``, ``kyber_90s``, ``pkcs11``, ``sha1_armv8``,
``sha1_sse2``, ``sha1_x86``, ``sha2_32_armv8``, ``sha2_32_bmi2``,
``sha2_32_x86``, ``sha2_64_bmi2``, ``shake``, ``sphincsplus_sha2``,
``sphincsplus_shake``, ``tls_cbc``, ``tls12``, ``tls13``, ``tls13_pqc``,
``xts``. Patches that don't alter any of the above-mentioned components or
relevant modules are considered out-of-scope.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This list of additional modules also contains the if_available modules of the BSI policy, like aes_armv8, for example. We do not want that, do we?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Its basically the list of both the "platform dependent modules" and the "additional modules" from the script. Though, you're right, the former is actually covered by the policy and probably doesn't need to show up here.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the following (platform dependent) modules should still be in this list, as they are not in the BSI policy nor a requirement of any of the modules:

  • certstor_system_macos
  • certstor_system_windows
  • certstor_sqlite3
  • sha1_armv8
  • sha1_sse2
  • sha1_x86

Basically all modules that we review but that would need to be explicitly mentioned in --enable-modules= to be enabled.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@reneme reneme Oct 12, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Mhm, fair enough. I'll open a pull request for those.

Edit: #149

Copy link
Collaborator

@FAlbertDev FAlbertDev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All in all LGTM. Only some optics and nits.

docs/audit_report/src/00_09_introduction.rst Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/audit_report/src/00_09_introduction.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/audit_report/scripts/audited_modules_list.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/audit_report/src/01_generic_changes.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/audit_report/src/01_generic_changes.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/audit_report/src/02_security_issues.rst Show resolved Hide resolved
@reneme
Copy link
Collaborator Author

reneme commented Oct 11, 2023

Fixed your remarks, except the overflowing table. Yikes, I don't want to workaround that. We should all just get used to HTML. 😭

@reneme reneme requested a review from FAlbertDev October 11, 2023 14:23
Copy link
Collaborator

@FAlbertDev FAlbertDev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🚀

@reneme reneme merged commit b5ca1ed into main Oct 11, 2023
@reneme reneme deleted the doc/changes_regarding_ap5 branch October 11, 2023 14:40
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Move Method Description of DATA-based Side Channel Analysis to Audit Method Document
3 participants