lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] add self-tests for rfc4309(ccm(aes))
    On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 03:16:53PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
    > On Thursday 09 April 2009 14:52:04 Neil Horman wrote:
    > > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 02:34:59PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
    > > > Patch is against current cryptodev-2.6 tree, successfully tested via
    > > > 'modprobe tcrypt type=45'. The number of test vectors might be a bit
    > > > excessive, but I tried to hit a wide range of combinations of varying
    > > > key sizes, associate data lengths, input lengths and pass/fail.
    > > >
    > > > Signed-off-by: Jarod Wilson <jarod@redhat.com>
    > > >
    > > >
    > > ><snip>
    > >
    > > > +/*
    > > > + * rfc4309 says section 8 contains test vectors, only, it doesn't, and NIST
    > > > + * Special Publication 800-38C's test vectors use nonce lengths our rfc4309
    > > > + * implementation doesn't support. The following are taken from fips cavs
    > > > + * fax files on hand at Red Hat.
    > > > + *
    > > > + * nb: actual key lengths are (klen - 3), the last 3 bytes are actually
    > > > + * part of the nonce which combine w/the iv, but need to be input this way.
    > > > + */
    > >
    > > RFC4309 section 8 actually says the test vectors you can use are here:
    > > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3610.txt
    > > in RFC3610 section 8.
    >
    > Oh, I'm dense, didn't correctly parse that 4309 was referring back to 3610
    > for the actual test vectors. I'll see what I can do with those...
    >
    Its easy to miss. It referrs to the RFC in an endnote by reference.

    > > I don't think theres anything wrong with the vectors
    > > your're using below, but you may want to add the vectors from 3610 just to
    > > imrpove the testing.
    >
    > I think I'd drop some of the ones in the initial patch in favor of adding
    > some from 3610, rather than simply adding more. The coverage is already
    > pretty good, increasing the number of vectors shouldn't really be necessary,
    > but it would definitely be nice to have vectors that are already publicly
    > published and verified.
    >
    ACK to that.

    >


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-04-10 04:33    [W:0.049 / U:0.616 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site