@matthew_d_green @0xabad1dea @bascule SHA-2-512 or SHA-3-512? :-)
@marshray @matthew_d_green @elwoz @0xabad1dea @sergeybratus you mean the "squeeze" step that obsoletes HMAC? Isn't that a SHA3 requirement?
-
-
@bascule@matthew_d_green@elwoz http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/hash/documents/SHA-3_FR_Notice_Nov02_2007%20-%20more%20readable%20version.pdf … saying NIST asked for hash fns, they may not approve bare SHA-3 as a repl for HMAC. -
@marshray@matthew_d_green@elwoz according to the Keccak paper, NIST SP 800-108 is the only standard that relies explicitly on HMAC -
@bascule@matthew_d_green@elwoz http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips198-1/FIPS-198-1_final.pdf … What about FIPS 198-1 (HMAC) itself? -
@marshray@matthew_d_green@elwoz remains to be seen I guess... but obsolete? ;) -
@bascule@matthew_d_green@elwoz Looking at slide 41/60 again it seems the "padded message" length wouldn't include the key.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.