On 24.03.2013 19:35, silvioprog wrote:
2013/3/24 Sven Barth <pascaldra...@googlemail.com
<mailto:pascaldra...@googlemail.com>>
On 24.03.2013 16:59, silvioprog wrote:
My function is more fast that cHash
(http://fundementals.__sourceforge.net/dl.html
<http://fundementals.sourceforge.net/dl.html>). The comparison
result is:
HMAC: 00:00:01:689 cHash: 00:00:02:038
My final unit is:
http://pastebin.com/4484g9i8
Could you maybe run your unit through some test vectors if you
haven't done already? E.g. these:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/__rfc4231
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4231>
If that works satisfactory you could create a bug report and we
could include it in the hash package.
Regards,
Sven
Yes. I'll try to implement it now! :)
For SHA1 this is the final implementation: http://pastebin.com/t4e3tvXa
Now I'll implement it for MD5 conforming
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2202, create some samples showing HMACMD5
and HMACSHA1 and finally create a bug report.
Thank you very much Sven! :)
Some comments:
- Maybe you should have HMACSHA1 return a TSHA1Digest; if the user wants
a String she can use SHA1Print herself (and HMACMD5 should consequently
return a TMD5Digest) [Note: this will work, because the digest always
has a fixed length for MD5 and SHA1 and this is also true for HMAC as
you can see in the test vectors in RFC2202)
- I'm not that happy with SHA1Raw and the constants being exported in
the interface...
Regards,
Sven
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
