Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Ignoring performance for now what is the consensus on the suitabilty
> of using AES-GMAC not as MAC but as a hash ?
>
> Would it be safe ?
>
> The "key" input to AES-GMAC would be something well known to the data
> and/or software.
>
> The only reason I'm asking is assuming
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote:
>
> Ignoring performance for now what is the consensus on the suitabilty of using
> AES-GMAC not as MAC but as a hash ?
>
> Would it be safe ?
>
> The "key" input to AES-GMAC would be something well known to the data and/or
> software.
>
> T
Hal Finney wrote:
Darren J Moffat asks:
Ignoring performance for now what is the consensus on the suitabilty of
using AES-GMAC not as MAC but as a hash ?
Would it be safe ?
The "key" input to AES-GMAC would be something well known to the data
and/or software.
No, I don't think this would
Darren J Moffat asks:
> Ignoring performance for now what is the consensus on the suitabilty of
> using AES-GMAC not as MAC but as a hash ?
>
> Would it be safe ?
>
> The "key" input to AES-GMAC would be something well known to the data
> and/or software.
No, I don't think this would work. In g
Ignoring performance for now what is the consensus on the suitabilty of
using AES-GMAC not as MAC but as a hash ?
Would it be safe ?
The "key" input to AES-GMAC would be something well known to the data
and/or software.
The only reason I'm asking is assuming it can be made to perform on some
