[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [pkcs11] Proposal: CKM_SHA512_224, CKM_SHA512_256, CKM_SHA512_T
On 08/06/13 16:26, Andrey Jivsov wrote:
Even PKCS#11 uses trunc( SHA-1(text), 3 bytes) in a couple places. There may even be a use for SHA-512/24 -- but it's not part of the proposal either.... yet let me observe that SHA-1/24 would be equivalent here to SHA-512/24 (clearly, a non-signature use). If one insists on all-SHA-512, it's a an edge case, but it has a neat solution: let the caller truncate the hash.
Do you mean "trunc(SHA-1(x), 24 bits)" is equivalent to "SHA-512/24(x)", or is equivalent to "trunc(SHA-512(x), 24 bits)"? Which did you mean? To clarify, when I say "SHA-512/24", I mean SHA-512/t, t=24. I do not mean trunc(SHA-512(x), 24). Unless I missed something, there is no such "SHA-1/24". I wish to request that talking about straight, unadorned truncation, trunc(x, len) be used instead. Affixing the "/<whatever>" notation to mean plain truncation of other hashes will only further the initial confusion that "SHA-512/t" meant *simply* truncating to t bits, and it does NOT. D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]