| FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending | | Home |
| Tools: [Download Repo ZIP] [Original HTTPS Page] |
This API exposes key details. It is conceptually different from the previously discussed keyObject.fields property since it does not give access to information that could compromise the security of the key, and the obtained information cannot be used to uniquely identify a key. The intended purpose is to determine "security properties" of keys, e.g. to generate a new key pair with the same parameters, or to decide whether a key is secure enough. closes nodejs#30045
|
Review requested:
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
| env->context(), | ||
| env->jwk_kty_string(), | ||
| env->jwk_okp_string()).IsNothing()) { | ||
| return Nothing<bool>(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This leaks rawX – is there any reason not to use a standard container here instead, i.e. std::vector<uint8_t> raw_x(len);? ditto below for rawD (/raw_d)
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
I'm closing this for now. Once #36879 lands i'll open a new proposal. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
| Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL |
I'm opening this Draft PR to see/probe if there's interest in taking it further (cleaning up and getting it ready to land, which i'm all willing to do). It builds on top of #36188
This adds the 'jwk' format option value for keyObject.export. It also adds a KeyObject.fromJwk static method (its functionality should probably be added to KeyObject.from but I don't think that one was meant to ship in the first place so maybe this could completely replace it, see the question in code.)
WDYT? Is it worth spending further time on in hopes of being accepted?
refs #24471
refs #26854
Checklist