On Jun 13, 2015, at 4:12 PM, Salz, Rich rs...@akamai.com wrote:
Recently the OpenSSL development community has expressed renewed
interest in having the document finalized as an RFC and they seem to
consider this to be a prerequisite of BLAKE2's adoption into the main branch
of OpenSSL
. A
BLAKE2 MAC can be customized wrt key or tag size, and can provide the highest
security level for a give key/tag size combination.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:15 AM Yoav Nir ynir.i...@gmail.com
mailto:ynir.i...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 11, 2015, at 2:36 AM, Bill Cox waywardg
On Jun 11, 2015, at 2:36 AM, Bill Cox waywardg...@google.com wrote:
BLAKE2 rocks. I'm looking forward to using it in many applications.
Sure. I would be glad to see that used as a hash in signatures and in TLS, as a
PRF in TLS and IKE, etc.
Does anyone know what the status of
On Jun 9, 2015, at 4:07 AM, Zooko Wilcox-OHearn zo...@leastauthority.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Salz, Rich rs...@akamai.com wrote:
So if you're going to replace md5sum... which one should you use? Which ONE
HASH should replace MD5?
I'd suggest blake2sp. It's
On Jun 8, 2015, at 1:37 PM, Hubert Kario via RT r...@openssl.org wrote:
On Friday 05 June 2015 16:39:36 Zooko Wilcox-OHearn via RT wrote:
Dear OpenSSL folks:
I'm one of the authors of the BLAKE2 hash function
(https://blake2.net). I've been working with the maintainers of GNU
coreutils
On Jun 8, 2015, at 1:37 PM, Hubert Kario via RT r...@openssl.org wrote:
On Friday 05 June 2015 16:39:36 Zooko Wilcox-OHearn via RT wrote:
Dear OpenSSL folks:
I'm one of the authors of the BLAKE2 hash function
(https://blake2.net). I've been working with the maintainers of GNU
coreutils
On Dec 16, 2014, at 7:28 PM, Hanno Böck ha...@hboeck.de wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 17:17:01 +
Viktor Dukhovni openssl-us...@dukhovni.org wrote:
However, where do we fit ChaCha20/Poly-1305? Again, not
hand-placement, but some extensible algorithm.
How about this simpler criterion:
On Dec 9, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Steffen Nurpmeso via RT r...@openssl.org wrote:
Salz, Rich rs...@akamai.com wrote:
|I think magic names -- shorthands -- are a very bad idea. \
I _completely_ disagree.
| They are point-in-time statements whose meaning evolves, \
|if not erodes, over time.
On Dec 9, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Steffen Nurpmeso via RT r...@openssl.org wrote:
Salz, Rich rs...@akamai.com wrote:
|I think magic names -- shorthands -- are a very bad idea. \
I _completely_ disagree.
| They are point-in-time statements whose meaning evolves, \
|if not erodes, over time.
On Dec 10, 2014, at 9:31 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor via RT r...@openssl.org
wrote:
I'd love to see a version of bettercrypto.org that only has to say to
configure OpenSSL version 1.0.3 and higher, you should use the string
BEST_PRACTICE”
I’d be much happier if that string was called
On Dec 10, 2014, at 9:31 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor via RT r...@openssl.org
wrote:
I'd love to see a version of bettercrypto.org that only has to say to
configure OpenSSL version 1.0.3 and higher, you should use the string
BEST_PRACTICE”
I’d be much happier if that string was called
Hi
I've compiled a recent SNAP of OpenSSL 1.0.1 (from 18/12). I am pretty sure
that the assembly language code generated for the ghash function (in
ghash-x86.s) is incorrect.
The gcm_init_4bit() function generates a 16-entry table of 128-bit values, to
be used as a multiplication table. The
12 matches
Mail list logo
