On Wed, 2018-07-25 at 07:31 +0200, Niels Möller wrote: > Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <[email protected]> writes: > > > True. I'll look into adding HMAC functions to nettle-benchmark > > then. > > It would be interesting to compare performance. > > That would be great. It's better to measure performance than to > speculate about it. > > > It might be worth moving both index and block out of 'state' > > function > > and then updating compress/MD_* macros to accept separate > > 'compression state' and 'buffer state' structures. This might > > result > > in some code cleanups. I'll give this idea a thought. > > That would be conceptually very nice. I suspect there might be some > complications from the count field (counter of compressed blocks), > which > most hash function have, but, e.g., sha3 doesn't. On the other hand, > hmac is designed to be used only with MD-style hash functions, so I'm > not sure hmac-sha3 is of any use.
It would be an overkill to have hmac-sha3, first because it is slow, and secondly because it was designed to be a MAC as simple as SHA3(K, msg). regards, Nikos _______________________________________________ nettle-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
