In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:25:09 -0400, John
Viega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
viega> It should be possible to replace the counter increment function.
viega> The new NIST modes doc doesn't specify a mandatory increment function,
viega> but it does recommend one that's different from "add one every time".
I agree. Please file a change request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so
it gets registered into our database, or it will most likely be
forgotten.
viega> Additionally, a lot of stuff built on counter mode is using a few bits
viega> of the counter for other purposes, so the effective counter size is
viega> less than the actual counter size. It would be nice to be able to add
viega> some sort of parameter that specifies the actual counter size, to
viega> prevent counter mode from continuing to encrypt when it's run out of
viega> counters.
I'm not sure if I understood that.
viega> Also, why isn't counter mode implemented in a generic fashion? It's
viega> so simple, it should be usable with any block cipher without having to
viega> write additional code.
Ask yourself why OFB, CFB, CBC and ECB modes aren't implemented
generically. A hint: speed. Someone made a test having a generic CBC
that would take a pointer to the cipher function to use. The speed
apparently decreased enough for it to be an issue.
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannv�gen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/
Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See <http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/> for more info.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
