Breaking: Using deriveBits instead of encryption for the storage url #24
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
martinheidegger
force-pushed
the
fix/derive-bit-storage
branch
5 times, most recently
from
d143c00 to
42dbd90
Compare
martinheidegger
force-pushed
the
fix/derive-bit-storage
branch
from
42dbd90 to
e8da42f
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In a conversation with @kurisu-dotto-komu I noticed that the derivation of the storage key is pretty inefficient. Using deriveBits should be the more efficient and logical solution. However this solution is a bit problematic as all existing documents would need to be re-encrypted for this to work smoothly.