Skip to content

Update architecture.rst #50

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

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Update architecture.rst #50

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

ho-oto
Copy link

@ho-oto ho-oto commented Jan 10, 2024

Hello!

I've recently undertaken the challenge of decrypting a Cryptomator Vault, relying exclusively on the existing documentation, which can be found here: https://github.com/ho-oto/cryptomator-extractor-rs

In the course of this endeavor, I noticed several areas where the documentation is lacking or incomplete. This PR is intended to address and amend these shortcomings:

  • It's unclear that the signature for JWT should use a concatenation of two master keys.
  • There are missing details in the scrypt parameters, specifically the values for p and dkLen.
  • The chunk number used in AAD is incorrectly described as a 32-bit big-endian integer in the documentation, whereas it is actually a 64-bit integer.

Verified

This commit was created on GitHub.com and signed with GitHub’s verified signature. The key has expired.

Verified

This commit was created on GitHub.com and signed with GitHub’s verified signature. The key has expired.
@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Jan 10, 2024

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@infeo infeo requested a review from overheadhunter January 10, 2024 11:18
Copy link
Member

@overheadhunter overheadhunter left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You are absolutely correct about the 64 bit chunk number. And the remaining clarifications don't hurt either.

I am deeply sorry that it took me so long to verify this - I must have marked the request for review as read. And if it wasn't for @infeo who made me aware of this again today, I might have never reviewed it. I hope you can forgive me! 😅

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.

None yet

3 participants