Re: SHA256 and friends.

On 20 Jan 2017, at 20:57, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > On 01/20/2017 05:01 PM, Eric Covener wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik >>> wrote:

Re: SHA256 and friends.

On 01/20/2017 05:01 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik >> wrote: >>> >>> Ok so if we had a special #ifdef for 'TRUE_MD5 and would manually >>>

Re: SHA256 and friends.

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik > wrote: >> >> Ok so if we had a special #ifdef for 'TRUE_MD5 and would manually tweak/mark >> up the 2 or 3 places >> that we know we need a

Re: SHA256 and friends.

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: > > Ok so if we had a special #ifdef for 'TRUE_MD5 and would manually tweak/mark > up the 2 or 3 places > that we know we need a real MD5 - we could have a 'fiddle' mode where we > silently return a better 'md5'

Re: SHA256 and friends.

> On 20 Jan 2017, at 16:02, Ben Laurie wrote: > > On 20 January 2017 at 14:52, Dirk-Willem van Gulik > wrote: >> >>> On 20 Jan 2017, at 15:46, Ben Laurie wrote: >>> >>> On 20 January 2017 at 14:36, Dirk-Willem van Gulik

Re: SHA256 and friends.

On 20 January 2017 at 14:52, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: > >> On 20 Jan 2017, at 15:46, Ben Laurie wrote: >> >> On 20 January 2017 at 14:36, Dirk-Willem van Gulik >> wrote: >>> On 20 Jan 2017, at 13:00, Ben Laurie

Re: SHA256 and friends.

> On 20 Jan 2017, at 12:53, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik > wrote: >> >> As to the selection of the hash - I can see three strategies >> >> A) current approach (we do this I think only for

Re: SHA256 and friends.

> On 20 Jan 2017, at 15:46, Ben Laurie wrote: > > On 20 January 2017 at 14:36, Dirk-Willem van Gulik > wrote: >> On 20 Jan 2017, at 13:00, Ben Laurie wrote: >> >>> Why do you need the obsolete hash functions? >> >> I am still in the

Re: SHA256 and friends.

On 20 January 2017 at 14:36, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: > On 20 Jan 2017, at 13:00, Ben Laurie wrote: > >> Why do you need the obsolete hash functions? > > I am still in the middle of some inventory work with the help of a few > friendly enterprise &

Re: SHA256 and friends.

On 20 Jan 2017, at 13:00, Ben Laurie wrote: > Why do you need the obsolete hash functions? I am still in the middle of some inventory work with the help of a few friendly enterprise & cloud folks. But it is nog looking good -- so far its seems that: - md4 is rarely used

Re: SHA256 and friends.

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: > On 20 Jan 2017, at 12:53, Yann Ylavic wrote: >>> >>>apr_hash(sha256_ctx, , , plain, plainlen, pool); >> >> Probably apr_crypto_hash() since apr_hash() is non-crypto

Re: SHA256 and friends.

On 20 Jan 2017, at 12:53, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> >>apr_hash(sha256_ctx, , , plain, plainlen, pool); > > Probably apr_crypto_hash() since apr_hash() is non-crypto hashtable in APR. > Would be nice to have init/update/finish versions too. I think global

Re: SHA256 and friends.

On 19 January 2017 at 19:50, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: > >> On 19 Jan 2017, at 19:50, Graham Leggett wrote: >> >> On 19 Jan 2017, at 18:29, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: >> >>> Am wondering now it if makes sense to create a new

Re: SHA256 and friends.

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: > > As to the selection of the hash - I can see three strategies > > A) current approach (we do this I think only for sha256): > > apr_crypto_hash_t * ctx = apr_crypto_sha256_new(pool); > >

Re: SHA256 and friends.

On 19 Jan 2017, at 21:04, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik > wrote: >> >>> On 19 Jan 2017, at 19:50, Graham Leggett wrote: >>> On 19 Jan 2017, at 18:29, Dirk-Willem van Gulik