Election-Tech-Initiative / Election-Tech-Initiative/electionguard-python

🐞 Incorrect generation of nonces for encryption of ballot selections

Abierto
#655 1 comentario 0 reacciones 0 asignados Ver en GitHub
enhancement
Lenguaje dominante
Python
Estrellas
168
Forks
103
Métricas de merge de PR
Sin PR fusionados en 30 d

Descripción

### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current Behavior

`encrypt_selection` does this:
```python
selection_description_hash = selection_description.crypto_hash()
nonce_sequence = Nonces(selection_description_hash, nonce_seed)
selection_nonce = nonce_sequence[selection_description.sequence_order]
disjunctive_chaum_pedersen_nonce = next(iter(nonce_sequence))
```
The `nonce_seed` value comes from a parameter to the function.

The ElectionGuard spec says: "For each option listed in the election manifest file [where an "option" here refers to a contest selection], the nonce used to encrypt that option is derived from the contest nonce ($R_C$) and the selection label for that option ($L_S) as $R = H(L_S, R_C)$."

So, the code that derives `nonce_sequence` is fine. But the next two lines are not compliant with the spec, because the whole `sequence_order` part is (or should be) subsumed in the `selection_description_hash`.

Instead, the last two lines should read something more like:
```python
selection_nonce, disjunctive_chaum_pedersen_nonce = nonce_sequence[0:1]
```

This distinction is important for anybody trying to implement the spec correctly. It would be helpful if the spec were more clear on nonce sequences. Right now it's relatively silent on this.

### Expected Behavior

_No response_

### Steps To Reproduce

_No response_

### Environment

_No response_

### Anything else?

_No response_

Guía de contribución

Abrir la guía de contribución

Evaluación

Este issue todavía no se ha evaluado.

Recibe los nuevos issues en tu correo

Un resumen breve de issues de GitHub para principiantes.