• bearboiblake@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 days ago

    Oh, sorry, you’re right. I can’t remember where I read about Ec25519 vulnerabilities now, but I do remember that I switched to using Ed25519 instead which was not vulnerable. I think it was something to do with random number generation, you might be able to turn something up on your preferred search engine - sorry for not being more helpful, I’m replying from my phone away from my computer.

    • Redjard@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      There was a confusing name change, and it doesn’t help that ecdsa/ed25519 has two names, but the number 25519 is specific to this fixed version. Funnily if you quote search nsa and ec25519, this thread is the only result besides one ycom thread (which also is in context of them being safe).

      ec25519 is not a typical name for it used in any software afaik, only in writing.

      Edit: Historically ecdsa used to refer to the backdoored one. Since it has fallen so much out of use, ecdsa now means ed25519 since it’s usually imcorrecly called ecdsa and also changed to ed25519. It is of course better to specify 25519.