On May 9, 2017 15:46, "Yasuo Ohgaki" <yohg...@ohgaki.net> wrote:
Hi Andrey,
On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohg...@ohgaki.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohg...@ohgaki.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't need your view of HKDF RFC or usage, but I do need good practical
>> examples that justify your point of view. Please don't waste of your/my
>> time,
>> just give some good examples in next reply. Thanks.
>>
>
> BTW, valid (yet not common/proper) example that I can think of is,
>
> <?php
> $strong_512bit_key = random_bytes(64);
> $strong_256bit_key = hash_hkdf('sha3-512', $strong_512bit_key, 32);
> ?>
>
> while it does not even require HKDF, though.
>
> <?php
> $strong_512bit_key = random_bytes(64);
> $strong_256bit_key = hash('sha3-256', $strong_512bit_key);
> ?>
>
> should be good enough.
>
> Even with "Info", following HMAC is enough.
>
> <?php
> $strong_512bit_key = random_bytes(64);
> $strong_256bit_key = hash_hmac('sha3-256', $strong_512bit_key,
$some_info);
> ?>
>
I'm only asking examples for long enough time.
I presume you cannot think of any valid and good example that
justify current hash_hkdf() signature.
Dude, he doesnt have to provide anything. The proposal was turned down
unanimously. Why do you keep sending mail after mail on this? Also, try
sending one mail instead of many when replying. Also, consider that the
likelihood of changing minds is now far gone as continuing this thread
without modifying your stance just biases people more against it.
Then documentation must stress not to use hash_hkdf() only with
"length" and "length/info".
Regards,
P.S.
Draft doc patch is this. (Not updated yet)
https://gist.github.com/anonymous/ace4fa267f20041676f265fe58c3f1ea
--
Yasuo Ohgaki
yohg...@ohgaki.net
