Basil Hess

> @bhess see your approval. so we are ok with approach 1 then mentioned [here](https://github.com/open-quantum-safe/liboqs/pull/2172#issuecomment-2995774988) ? > > if yes, I guess its good to create a task for handling...

Thanks for the updates! One more general comment about the test: The main use case of the rejection key in ML-KEM seems to be if active attackers modify the ciphertext,...

Thanks @planetf1 for investigating and adding the workaround!

The information I got is that the pq-crystals team looks at updating the implementation later this month.

> The NIST ACVP repository hasn't been updated with new vectors. Do you know when will that happen? According to [this message](https://groups.google.com/a/list.nist.gov/g/pqc-forum/c/s_Wez9FanHw/m/2VcIE5skBgAJ?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer) on the pqc-forum, a fixed version should be...

Planning a draft PR later today. There will still be some open points for a full integration: access to the 'internal' API to be able to run the ACVP vectors...

Hi @johngray-dev, yes I'll update PR #1919 soon with a proposed API that supports providing the context string.

ML-KEM in liboqs is currently tested against NIST's static [ACVP vectors](https://github.com/open-quantum-safe/liboqs/blob/main/tests/test_acvp_vectors.py). Planning to do the same for the ML-DSA integration. AFAIK the same type of tests are performed during a...

> And the reason we're not landing #1919 is because we're waiting on APIs to become available enabling this test, right? Just for my personal curiosity now: There's no such...

NIST announced to specify a derandomized API for keygen (and other randomized functions) for the final standards. See https://groups.google.com/a/list.nist.gov/g/pqc-forum/c/Mf2kemwwreY/m/KArjoIhxAQAJ?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer The main purpose seems to be testing and the API should...