tests: update Wycheproof #1711

1. 
   fanquake commented at 1:18 pm on July 23, 2025: member

   Updates Wycheproof after https://github.com/C2SP/wycheproof/pull/150. Cherry-picks the commit from #1686 (let me know if you want this commit message changed).
2. real-or-random added the label tweak/refactor on Jul 25, 2025
3. 
   real-or-random commented at 6:43 am on July 25, 2025: contributor

   Can you also adjust the references in https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/blob/master/src/wycheproof/WYCHEPROOF_COPYING?
4. tests: update Wycheproof files

   Pulls in relevant changes from https://github.com/C2SP/wycheproof/pull/150.

   9ea54c69b7
5. Fix typos and spellings 5433648ca0
6. fanquake force-pushed on Jul 25, 2025
7. 
   fanquake commented at 8:17 am on July 25, 2025: member

   Can you also adjust the references

   Fixed up.

8. real-or-random approved
9. 
   real-or-random commented at 9:39 am on July 25, 2025: contributor

   ACK 5433648ca0d2e8fb6679acbdee74d2f40c7ef25a
10. in src/wycheproof/ecdsa_secp256k1_sha256_bitcoin_test.json:98 in 5433648ca0

     94@@ -95,8 +95,8 @@
     95     },
     96     "SignatureMalleabilityBitcoin" : {
     97       "bugType" : "SIGNATURE_MALLEABILITY",
     98-      "description" : "\"BitCoins\"-curves are curves where signature malleability can be a serious issue. An implementation should only accept a signature s where s < n/2. If an implementation is not meant for uses cases that require signature malleability then this implementation should be tested with another set of test vectors.",
     99-      "effect" : "In bitcoin exchanges, it may be used to make a double deposits or double withdrawals",
    100+      "description" : "Signature malleability can be a serious issue in Bitcoin. An implementation should only accept a signature s where s < n/2. If an implementation is not meant for use cases that require signature malleability then this implementation should be tested with another set of test vectors.",
    

    ---

    ---

    

    josibake commented at 11:09 am on July 25, 2025:

    I think this comment should read something like:

    0      "description" : "Signature malleability can be a serious issue in Bitcoin. An implementation should only accept a signature s where s < n/2. If an implementation is meant for use cases that require signature malleability then this implementation should be tested with another set of test vectors.",
    

    ---

    

    jonasnick commented at 2:07 pm on July 29, 2025:

    Only one test vector has the SignatureMalleabilityBitcoin flag and it tests a failing signature. So I cannot make sense of the original descriptioin either. Maybe it should say something like:

    If an implementation is meant for use cases that tolarete signature malleability then this implementation should not be tested with this set of test vectors.

    ---

    

    josibake commented at 3:39 pm on July 29, 2025:

    Opened https://github.com/C2SP/wycheproof/pull/153 upstream, will pipe through the changes to here if/when the upstream PR is merged.
11. 
    josibake commented at 11:10 am on July 25, 2025: member

    ACK https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/commit/5433648ca0d2e8fb6679acbdee74d2f40c7ef25a

    Left a note regarding one of the comments that was touched, but as I understand it this change would need to be made upstream anyways, so not a blocking comment.

    (happy to upsteam the change, if I’m understanding the intent of the comment correctly)

12. jonasnick merged this on Jul 29, 2025
13. jonasnick closed this on Jul 29, 2025

    ---

14. fanquake deleted the branch on Jul 29, 2025

Contributors
fanquake real-or-random josibake jonasnick

Labels
tweak/refactor