On Dec 12, 2011, at 9:14 PM, Tony Hansen wrote: > On 12/12/2011 1:55 PM, Yoav Nir wrote: >> On Dec 12, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Marsh Ray wrote: >> >>> It's already somewhat ambiguous now that NIST has >>> defined SHA[-2]-512/256. >>> >>> http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsDrafts.html#fips-180-4 >> Then that is what it must be called: "sha2-512/256". I think that's a legal >> string in HTTP headers. >> >> Supposedly this is faster on 64-bit applications. I wonder if that is true >> in practice. So far, I have seen no implementations of this hash function. > > I've done a complete bit-level implementation. It's a straight-forward > modification to RFC 6234.
Yeah, me too. But I haven't seen it used in certificates or anything else. I also never measured the performance with either 32- or 64-bit code, and I don't see people rushing to write "HMAC-SHA2-512/256 and its use in IPsec/TLS/SSH/whatever". Last time I checked, it wasn't in OpenSSL either. _______________________________________________ websec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
