On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 9:47:22 PM UTC-5, El Ray wrote: > > > Sorry..deleted that just before your reply appeared. On further > consideration I also realized that although I just got some code to work, I > shouldn't assume it's a non-issue till the cross-validation you discussed > was done. But apologies in advanve if this is a non-issue. >
Nah, don't worry about it. The intentions were good and most of the design was good for variable block sizes. We had a few pain points on the cut-in because of the high degree of template parameterization, and depending on virtual functions to correct some hard coded values. If the library is hard to use correctly, then that points to failures in our design. I think it is more important to correct the design problems then applying band-aides to each incorrect usage. Consider, you used the block cipher the same way block ciphers have been used for the last 25 years, but you could not arrive at the correct result. That's our problem, not your problem. We are tracking the variable block cipher removal at https://github.com/weidai11/cryptopp/issues/535. Jeff -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ Users" Google Group. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected]. More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at http://www.cryptopp.com. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crypto++ Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
