> From: owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org On Behalf Of Brian Lavender
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 September, 2009 03:28
> To: openssl-users@openssl.org
> Subject: Re: Encrypting 32/64 bit integers
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 01:59:12PM -0700, musikit wrote:
> >
On Wed September 30 2009, Victor Duchovni wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 01:00:44PM -0500, Michael S. Zick wrote:
>
> > You might want to use some representation other than binary for your
> > integers. There are a lot of ways to do that, perhaps pick something
> > that will give you a reasonab
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 01:00:44PM -0500, Michael S. Zick wrote:
> You might want to use some representation other than binary for your
> integers. There are a lot of ways to do that, perhaps pick something
> that will give you a reasonable (for cryptographic purposes) length.
This has no impact
On Wed September 30 2009, Kenneth Goldman wrote:
> owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org wrote on 09/30/2009 03:27:56 AM:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 01:59:12PM -0700, musikit wrote:
> > >
> > > again works awesome for strings. however we are realizing there are
> > > sometimes we just want a 32 bit i
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:27:56AM -0700, Brian Lavender wrote:
> > please forgive me as i am not an OpenSSL or encryption expert.
> >
> > i am already using OpenSSL to do encryption of strings and it works awesome.
> > i do have a question about encrypting smaller amounts of data though.
Does t
owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org wrote on 09/30/2009 03:27:56 AM:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 01:59:12PM -0700, musikit wrote:
> >
> > again works awesome for strings. however we are realizing there are
> > sometimes we just want a 32 bit int or a 64 bit int encrypted and
nothing
> > else.
>
> You co
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 01:59:12PM -0700, musikit wrote:
>
> hello,
>
> please forgive me as i am not an OpenSSL or encryption expert.
>
> i am already using OpenSSL to do encryption of strings and it works awesome.
> i do have a question about encrypting smaller amounts of data though.
>
> my
> From: owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org On Behalf Of David Schwartz
> Sent: Monday, 21 September, 2009 19:48
> Peter Wilkes wrote:
>
> > so we ran this with a 64 bit int and noticed that 128 bits
> comes out.
> > can we safely ignore the other 64 bits? why are we getting
> 128 bits out?
> >
> >
thank you everyone. i got a better grasp on things now.
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org
Automated List Manager
Peter Wilkes wrote:
> so we ran this with a 64 bit int and noticed that 128 bits comes out.
> can we safely ignore the other 64 bits? why are we getting 128 bits out?
>
> we are using the TripleDES cipher.
It's not clear if you mean 128-bits comes out of the encryption process or
128-bits comes
Peter Wilkes wrote:
> so we ran this with a 64 bit int and noticed that 128 bits comes out.
> can we safely ignore the other 64 bits? why are we getting 128 bits out?
Ciphers generally encrypt data in fixed-width blocks, which means you'll
end up with a final encrypted cyphertext of a multiple of
Hi Peter,
> so we ran this with a 64 bit int and noticed that 128 bits comes out.
> can we safely ignore the other 64 bits? why are we getting 128 bits out?
It depends on your choice of modes. Specifically on the padding
requirements accompanying the mode.
Modes such as ECB and CBC will pad to th
12 matches
Mail list logo
