On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Jean-Pierre Münch < [email protected]> wrote:
> Am 10.09.2015 um 10:58 schrieb Jeffrey Walton: > > We have a roadmap at https://cryptopp.com/wiki/Roadmap. There's a lot of > planned additions. > > We may want to add a possibility to support variable block sized block > ciphers (like Rijndael and Threefish) requiring different code paths > (template specializations?). > Yes. And we want an AES-NI option for Rijndael. > We now need to start accumulating the implementations. I have some of > them, like HMQV, FHMQV and the NIST_DRBG's, but I need the others. If you > have something to contribute, then please share it. > > I can provide fully featured Skein (excluding Skein-PRNG and Skein-PBKDF) > and a Threefish implementation, > Great! > ...but there are issues we need to overcome first, including the following > (already in the roadmap): > > - A design of a TweakableBlockTransformation class. I can provide a > proposal. > - A design of a KDF / KBKDF class. > > Please do so, and let's review it. > (1) Copyright assigned to crypto++ project. > > no problem. > :-) > (2) Implementations must have test cases. > > > I haven't done it yet for Threefish / Skein but I think I can adapt my VS > Unit Test for this. There quite some testvectors for the two algorithms out > there. > Ideally we want to use the existing test-vectors, and generate our own only when there's nothing reliable/trustworthy in the field. > Dear Jeffrey: > > Is there anything I could do to get BLAKE2 moved from "Planned > Features" to "Crypto++ 6.0"? We can satisfy the administrivia and test > vectors requirements, that's for sure. Anything else deterring you > from adopting BLAKE2? > > Regards, > > Zooko > > That was me in fact. I just put it to "planned features" as we didn't have > anyone (yet) providing the necessary code and I had no direct intentions in > providing it as soon as 6.0 (mainly because the SSE code was broken for me > on VS2012). > I'll add a few sentences better explaining that anything listed as > "planned" will be likely implemented at some point by the maintainers, but > any secure provided implementation can be provided to let the feature make > it into the next assemble-stage release. > As we have time before 6.0, there's no reason not to include BLAKE2. > One note from me: I forgot to append "(-MAC)" to the Blake2 part. Will you > also provide us with the MAC functionality? (to not allow Skein to be > "better"?) > :-) -- Regards, Mouse -- -- 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 Google Groups "Crypto++ Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
