It doesn't have to be "completely separate code", but clearly AES must not allow any block size besides 16 bytes (must not offer this option), and Rijndael must support three block sizes selectable at the time of use.
I will keep to myself what I think about the suggestion to "point out in the documentation" in general, and especially when cryptographic issues are involved. Template instantiation could be a good solution. -- Regards, Mouse On Dec 23, 2012 8:13 PM, "Christopher Head" <[email protected]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: RIPEMD160 > > On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:12:11 -0500 > Mouse <[email protected]> wrote: > > > AES is not Rijndael. It's a shame if Wei collapsed the two into one. > > Since Rijndael supports any combination of key and block sizes from > > the set {128, 192, 256} (with algorithmic implications), the only > > correct solution in my opinion is to divorce the code bases for them > > and provide separate implementations. > > -- > > Regards, > > Mouse > > How does it make any sense to write completely separate code for the > two? IMO, the ideal situation is to implement only Rijndael, and then > point out in the documentation (or possibly through template > instantiations) that if you want AES you just use Rijndael and set the > block size to 128. > > Chris > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEAREDAAYFAlDXrDQACgkQXUF6hOTGP7etZwCePrvhv9vGw8PcFab2TAs/mdD1 > 1MoAn1fGflfIJjMEeivY8bDF1ByNdEy4 > =5CSs > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- 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.
