test vectors 2-E-5, 2-E-6, RFC vs reference implementation about paseto HOT 5 CLOSED

Any thoughts on this?

My interest if that of a library maintainer. I am currently matching the reference implementation to ensure correctness and compatibility.

from paseto.

Another disrepancy for v1-S-1 and v1-S-2. RFC source:

{"data":"this is a secret message","exp":"2019-01-01T00:00:00+00:00"}

Reference implementation:

{"data":"this is a signed message","exp":"2019-01-01T00:00:00+00:00"}

from paseto.

We have JSON files in #128 that have the correct inputs/outputs.

Does that help?

from paseto.

We have JSON files in #128 that have the correct inputs/outputs.

Does that help?

This helps a lot! Thanks. I'll match the JSON in my tests.

from paseto.

This can be closed now. Thank you for your help @paragonie-security

I've implemented tests for updated and expanded v2 test vectors without any issues as per spec here: https://github.com/paragonie/paseto/blob/b039dfefa65376fe11fd7dd6cc2e4d26b08b1144/docs/03-Implementation-Guide/Test-Vectors/v2.json
Expecting these test vectors to eventually be available in the documentation here: https://github.com/paragonie/paseto/tree/master/docs/03-Implementation-Guide

For implementation purposes, I find it useful to have the test vectors JSON available as a git repo so that any library can include it as a git submodule or a subtree and run tests against the JSON. I've created https://github.com/purificant/paseto-test-vectors to achieve this, if there was an official version of this, I'd prefer to use it instead.

Thanks for your hard work! PASETO ❤️

from paseto.