Hi, I don't know much about the wiki. I usually wind up finding things on there when I'm using google.
It looks like a standard MediaWiki installation, which means that: http://www.cryptopp.com/wiki/Special:AllPages http://www.cryptopp.com/wiki/Special:Categories are automatically populated and might help you navigate a bit. Geoff On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Wizard Of Oz <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Geoff, > > I noticed that the Crypto++ Wiki has lot of info, but there doesn't seem > to be an index, and it seems pretty hard to find that information? Or, am I > missing something? > > Just thought I'd mention that ... > > On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:55:14 PM UTC-6, Geoff Beier wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Wizard Of Oz <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> ? What is the difference between calling "rsautl" on a previously >>> generated hash - and doing it with dgst in one step? I'm not a crypto >>> specialist as you can see, but trying to understand this better. >>> >>> rsautl in sign mode just pads whatever input it receives and encrypts it >> using the *private* key so that anyone with the *public* key can decrypt >> it. When things are working right, this input is a digest, the verifying >> party calculates the same digest, and compares the two. >> >> dgst in sign mode calculates the digest and formats it the way anything >> processing pkcs#1v1.5 data will expect, then does the same thing as rsautl. >> >> You could of course imitate the process using the intermediate digest >> file, but you'll need to format it properly. Here's an example of how to do >> so, but I'd advise just using dgst :-) >> >> http://pastebin.com/GVRGn01q >> >> That's mainly interesting as an exercise in fooling around with openssl's >> asn1parse tool (and understanding the structure of the signature), not for >> getting things done. >> >> >> I'm also curious why your Crypto++ sample code is not calling >>> VerifyMessage(), but instead using the VerifyFilter()? Could I use >>> VerifyMessage() just the same? >>> >>> Because that's what I had sitting around on my drive? It's the same >> reason i hardcoded to SHA256 also. The reason I had that around as opposed >> to VerifyMessage() is that I frequently use sources, sinks and filters. The >> SignatureVerificationFilter class is much more convenient in that case. >> VerifyMessage() should work just the same if you've already got your data >> in arrays of bytes. >> >> http://www.cryptopp.com/wiki/**Pipelining<http://www.cryptopp.com/wiki/Pipelining> >> >> is a good read to get an idea why I might prefer the filter. >> >> Geoff >> > -- > 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. > -- 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.
