3 ms·

You could overload computeHmac's return value so that it would return either a string or a secret, then you could use it directly with checkHmac, if you wanted,

by aflag 4y ago

You could overload computeHmac's return value so that it would return either a string or a secret, then you could use it directly with checkHmac, if you wanted, or as a string in other applications.

henrydark 4y ago
Consider this: I don't even know what hmac is, and it's implemented in a library. Also, I can't overload return values on their own in C++, I would have to overload the whole signature. In fact, to get the same monadic result, I need 2^n-1 overloads for a function with n arguments (one for each subset of the arguments except the empty one). Of course monads' advantages can be coded directly, just as functions can be coded directly in assembly. Personally I code in C++, so I've never used proper monads, but I see where they save work.
- aflag 4y ago
  I was just considering a nicer interface for computeHmac at a library level, but if you don't have that, you could still just implement checkHmac using your Secret class and call it with checkHmac(Secret(str), message, mac).
  - henrydark 4y ago
    It's turtles all the way down. Without the secrets monad support in the language, at some point I have to be the one enforcing secrets in multiple places: if I implement checkHmac(secret(str),...) that calls computeHmac(str)->str then I must both "unbox" the secret(str) _and_ "box" the return value of computeHmac. I can do this, sure, and if I forget then I'll have a security bug. This is similar to the situation with c++ destructors over c's manual malloc+free. If you're happy freeing at every function's end, then this secrets thing adds nothing for you, and that's cool. It's your own choice what language to use.
    - aflag 4y ago
      If you try to call computeHmac from checkHmac surely you'll get some sort of error or warning, wouldn't you? You have no guarantee computeHmac will your secret will be treated as a secret by computeHmac, if its signature is simply "str". Unboxing it is never safe.

by aflag 4y ago

You could overload computeHmac's return value so that it would return either a string or a secret, then you could use it directly with checkHmac, if you wanted, or as a string in other applications.

henrydark 4y ago

Consider this: I don't even know what hmac is, and it's implemented in a library. Also, I can't overload return values on their own in C++, I would have to overload the whole signature. In fact, to get the same monadic result, I need 2^n-1 overloads for a function with n arguments (one for each subset of the arguments except the empty one). Of course monads' advantages can be coded directly, just as functions can be coded directly in assembly. Personally I code in C++, so I've never used proper monads, but I see where they save work.

aflag 4y ago
I was just considering a nicer interface for computeHmac at a library level, but if you don't have that, you could still just implement checkHmac using your Secret class and call it with checkHmac(Secret(str), message, mac).
- henrydark 4y ago
  It's turtles all the way down. Without the secrets monad support in the language, at some point I have to be the one enforcing secrets in multiple places: if I implement checkHmac(secret(str),...) that calls computeHmac(str)->str then I must both "unbox" the secret(str) _and_ "box" the return value of computeHmac. I can do this, sure, and if I forget then I'll have a security bug. This is similar to the situation with c++ destructors over c's manual malloc+free. If you're happy freeing at every function's end, then this secrets thing adds nothing for you, and that's cool. It's your own choice what language to use.
  - aflag 4y ago
    If you try to call computeHmac from checkHmac surely you'll get some sort of error or warning, wouldn't you? You have no guarantee computeHmac will your secret will be treated as a secret by computeHmac, if its signature is simply "str". Unboxing it is never safe.