Well a fast one would of course be better, but I guess a "slow" one is just as fine...
Would this affect the current fast implementation of Crypto++ ? Thank you! On 1 Mrz., 00:44, "Wei Dai" <[email protected]> wrote: > It's not in Crypto++ yet. Do you need to have a fast implementation of > Rijndael with 256-bit blocksize? I was planning to do an implementation of > Rijndael that doesn't use large tables, and I can add support for larger > blocksizes as part of that. Doing a fast implementation would be a lot more > work. > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "TimmyTurner" <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 1:48 PM > To: "Crypto++ Users" <[email protected]> > Subject: Rijndael with 256 bits > > > > > Hi! > > > Could you schedule a Rijndael implementation with support for 256 bit > > blocksizes for the next release? (Or does the library already provide > > one and I missed it?) > > > Thanks --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
