Add neutral variant #11
Conversation
hotp_initialize
Outdated
| while [ "$i" -lt "$COUNTER" ]; do | ||
| echo "Updating counter to $i" | ||
| HOTP_CODE=$(echo $SECRET | hotp $i) | ||
| hotp_verification check $HOTP_CODE > /dev/null | ||
| if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then | ||
| echo "HOTP check failed for counter=$i, code=$HOTP_CODE" | ||
| exit 1 | ||
| fi | ||
| let "i += 10" | ||
| done |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the current revision manual counter rewinding is obsolete, since the value could be provided directly.
main.c
Outdated
| } else { | ||
| } else if(strstr(argv[0], nitrokey_exec) != NULL) { | ||
| key_brand = "Nitrokey"; | ||
| } else { | ||
| key_brand = "USB security dongle"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just an idea by the way: brand can be taken from the used device, and stored for the later use for UI needs. No need to have it hard-coded in multiple binaries, unless there is a need to accept only one particular device model.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like the idea of detecting (when possible) the actual device in use and branding it in the interface accordingly. My main worry with generic branding is the risk of confusing a user who is new to these technologies and doesn't see "USB security dongle" printed on their Nitrokey or Librem Key, but does see "Nitrokey" or "Librem Key" on there. Since the USA Librem Keys and Nitrokeys now have different USB IDs we should be able to tell them apart relatively easily.
|
cc @kylerankin |
|
I'll try to close this these days, I am sorry for the delay |
|
Related: #12 (comment) |
alex-nitrokey
force-pushed
the
neutral-variant
branch
from
24dac11 to
d8f6b68
Compare
|
This PR removes the term which decides which devices is requested completely. I found it suitable as the corresponding it asked to be inserted in Heads already. Please have a look at these changes and how I solved the issue in heads itself. I hope you like this solution as a way to have a neutral version on the one hand, but an easy understanding terminology for users on the other hand. |
|
This was tested in heads, see heads/#761 |
|
@kylerankin Hi! I plan to merge this one today. Any objections? |
|
This looks good to me. No objections.
…On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 12:10:28AM -0700, Szczepan Zalega wrote:
@kylerankin Hi! I plan to merge this one today. Any objections?
--
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#11 (comment)
|
Attempt to add a vendor neutral variant for heads.
It feels like this is not a nice solution. We may should merge the single files all together.