On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:20:50PM +0100, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> What do you want to USE your SHA-3 implementation for?
I would like to have a sha3 command line tool. Just to have it
there and start using it. For example adding it to ports distfiles
would be trivial.
Yes, general protoco
Daniel Loebenberger:
> - The construction of SHA3 differs considerably from the SHA2
> constructions
> - SHA3's design principles are far better understood than the ones of
> SHA2.
I hear you, but you are missing the point.
> - A possible migration away from SHA2 will be
> faster when including
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 20:32:30 -0700
"Theo de Raadt" wrote:
> > I also use the sha512 command on a regular basis, and notice a
> > performance improvement (compared to sha256) with amd64 systems.
>
> But is /bin the place to put a performance improving command?
>
> No. That isn't the place for
Hi,
concerning the question who needs SHA3, we do not agree that SHA3 should
be skipped as a standard. As cryptographers we sincerely believe that
the SHA3 design is superior to the one of SHA256 also due to the process
it was created. We believe that an efficient implementation will trigger
incre
Hi,
we thank you for all your comments!
The following contains our answers specific to your technical remarks
on the patch itself. Another email on the cryptographic discussion
will follow.
1.) We agree that six new commands are not a good idea. The minimal
variant would be to include sha3-256.
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 22:06:37 +, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> I've had something like this on my to-do list for some time and
> eventually dropped it because I couldn't think of a compelling use
> case.
>
> "Maybe Skip SHA-3"
> https://www.imperialviolet.org/2017/05/31/skipsha3.html
That make
Wed, 10 Jan 2018 20:34:44 -0700 "Theo de Raadt"
> > Another question raised by a SHA-3 import is whether this should
> > also be added to LibreSSL and if we want to continue with having
> > duplicate implementations of hash algorithms in libc and libcrypto.
>
> very good question.
>
> Who *cru
> Another question raised by a SHA-3 import is whether this should
> also be added to LibreSSL and if we want to continue with having
> duplicate implementations of hash algorithms in libc and libcrypto.
very good question.
Who *crucially* needs this
OpenBSD is intended to be a small operating s
> I also use the sha512 command on a regular basis, and notice a
> performance improvement (compared to sha256) with amd64 systems.
But is /bin the place to put a performance improving command?
No. That isn't the place for putting strange performance commands.
It is a place for putting *interope
I also use the sha512 command on a regular basis, and notice a
performance improvement (compared to sha256) with amd64 systems.
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:10:40 + (GMT)
Tom Cosgrove wrote:
> >>> "Todd C. Miller" 10-Jan-18 16:28 >>>
> >
> > On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:59:30 +0100, Jeremie Courreges-
On 2018-01-09, Daniel Loebenberger wrote:
> enclosed you find a patch to add basic SHA3-/Keccak support to OpenBSD.
What do you want to use it for?
I've had something like this on my to-do list for some time and
eventually dropped it because I couldn't think of a compelling use
case.
"Maybe Sk
>>> "Todd C. Miller" 10-Jan-18 16:28 >>>
>
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:59:30 +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>
> > Do we really want these? For SHA-2, sha256 and sha512 are enough IMHO.
>
> Does anyone actually use the sha512 command? I'd be fine with
> retiring the sha512 link and adding a s
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:59:30 +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> Do we really want these? For SHA-2, sha256 and sha512 are enough IMHO.
Does anyone actually use the sha512 command? I'd be fine with
retiring the sha512 link and adding a sha3-256 one.
- todd
> > LINKS= ${BINDIR}/md5 ${BINDIR}/sha1 \
> > + ${BINDIR}/md5 ${BINDIR}/sha224 \
> > ${BINDIR}/md5 ${BINDIR}/sha256 \
> > + ${BINDIR}/md5 ${BINDIR}/sha384 \
>
> Do we really want these? For SHA-2, sha256 and sha512 are enough IMHO.
>
> > ${BINDIR}/md5 ${BINDIR}/sha512 \
> > +
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 10 2018, Daniel Loebenberger wrote:
> Hi Todd,
>
> thank you for your comments!
>
> We have included all the necessary changes in the patch attached.
One thing caught my eye:
> Best regards,
> Daniel, Stefan and Alexander
>
> Index: bin/md5/Makefile
> ==
I don't think you compiled a ramdisk.
The ramdisk users distrib/special/md5 to build a binary with
fewer included components, otherwise it won't fit on the media.
At least this isn't right:
#endif /* !defined(SHA2_ONLY) */
SHA2_CTX sha2;
+ SHA3_CTX sha3;
You can inspect the Makef
Hi Todd,
thank you for your comments!
We have included all the necessary changes in the patch attached.
Best regards,
Daniel, Stefan and Alexander
Index: bin/md5/Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/bin/md5/Makefile,v
retrieving revisio
On Tue, 09 Jan 2018 16:47:18 +0100, Daniel Loebenberger wrote:
> Changes have been made to libc, and a suite of sha3 checksum tools
> were added (sha3-224, sha3-256, sha3-384, sha-512), extending the
> existing md5(1) checksum tool.
>
> The SHA3 implementation itself was taken from the reference c
Hi everyone,
enclosed you find a patch to add basic SHA3-/Keccak support to OpenBSD.
Changes have been made to libc, and a suite of sha3 checksum tools
were added (sha3-224, sha3-256, sha3-384, sha-512), extending the
existing md5(1) checksum tool.
The SHA3 implementation itself was taken from
19 matches
Mail list logo
