Lib.rs

› constant_time_eq › Reviews

These reviews are from cargo-vet. To add your review, set up cargo-vet and submit your URL to its registry.

The current version of constant_time_eq is 0.3.1.

cargo-vet does not verify reviewers' identity. You have to fully trust the source the audits are from.

safe-to-deploy (implies safe-to-run)

This crate will not introduce a serious security vulnerability to production software exposed to untrusted input. More…

safe-to-run
Implied by other criteria

This crate can be compiled, run, and tested on a local workstation or in controlled automation without surprising consequences. More…

ub-risk-1 (implies ub-risk-2)

Excellent soundness.

Full description of the audit criteria can be found at https://github.com/google/rust-crate-audits/blob/main/auditing_standards.md#ub-risk-1

ub-risk-2 (implies ub-risk-3)
Implied by other criteria

Negligible unsoundness or average soundness.

Full description of the audit criteria can be found at https://github.com/google/rust-crate-audits/blob/main/auditing_standards.md#ub-risk-2

ub-risk-3 (implies ub-risk-4)
Implied by other criteria

Mild unsoundness or suboptimal soundness.

Full description of the audit criteria can be found at https://github.com/google/rust-crate-audits/blob/main/auditing_standards.md#ub-risk-3

ub-risk-4
Implied by other criteria

Extreme unsoundness.

Full description of the audit criteria can be found at https://github.com/google/rust-crate-audits/blob/main/auditing_standards.md#ub-risk-4

does-not-implement-crypto (implies crypto-safe)

Inspection reveals that the crate in question does not attempt to implement any cryptographic algorithms on its own.

Note that certification of this does not require an expert on all forms of cryptography: it's expected for crates we import to be "good enough" citizens, so they'll at least be forthcoming if they try to implement something cryptographic. When in doubt, please ask an expert.

crypto-safe
Implied by other criteria

All crypto algorithms in this crate have been reviewed by a relevant expert.

Note: If a crate does not implement crypto, use does-not-implement-crypto, which implies crypto-safe, but does not require expert review in order to audit for.

crypto-reviewed

The cryptographic code in this crate has been reviewed for correctness by a member of a designated set of cryptography experts within the project.

unknown

May have been packaged automatically without a review

These reviews are from Crev, a distributed system for code reviews. To add your review, set up cargo-crev.

The current version of constant_time_eq is 0.3.1.

0.1.5 (older version) Rating: Strong Positive Thoroughness: Medium Understanding: High

by Minoru on 2020-05-13

I compared this to crypto/memneq.c from Linux 5.7-rc5; the algorithm is indeed the same, and I understand how it works. There are comments for all the unobvious bits, too. I am not formally trained in cryptography, but I posses basic knowledge and I believe this code to be secure for any application.

0.1.4 (older version) Rating: Positive Thoroughness: Medium Understanding: Medium

by git.sr.ht/~icefox on 2019-09-19

Tiny, safe, well-documented.

0.1.3 (older version) Rating: Positive Thoroughness: Medium Understanding: High

Approved without comment by dpc on 2019-01-27

Lib.rs has been able to verify that all files in the crate's tarball are in the crate's repository with a git tag matching the version. Please note that this check is still in beta, and absence of this confirmation does not mean that the files don't match.

Crates in the crates.io registry are tarball snapshots uploaded by crates' publishers. The registry is not using crates' git repositories, so there is a possibility that published crates have a misleading repository URL, or contain different code from the code in the repository.

To review the actual code of the crate, it's best to use cargo crev open constant_time_eq. Alternatively, you can download the tarball of constant_time_eq v0.3.1 or view the source online.