Re: HMAC

From: Phillip Hauser (phauser_nospam_at_gmx.de)
Date: 07/24/03 

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:54:21 +0200

> OMAC wasn't designed by NIST, but it's their current recommendation.
> HMAC is also good.
So it doesn't really matter whether I use OMAC or HMAC. OMAC is slightly better?

> Please define what you mean by `Rijndael-256 encryption'. I know what
> Rijndael is, but there are /many/ ways of using Rijndael to encrypt
> data, and some of them aren't secure. Also, does the 256 refer to key
> length or block size? Or both?
Rijndael in CBC mode using an IV. 256bit key length. 128bit block size.

So an important point (to state what you have written) is to use different keys for each direction (send/receive) and to derive
these keys from the secret key. Never use the secret key itself to encrypt something or calculate a MAC. Is that right?

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Poly1305-AES vs. UMAC
    ... UMAC/Polymac are much faster than HMAC or CMAC (= same as OMAC, ... and UMAC/Polymac are provably secure (up to the security of ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: HMAC
    ... Is it right NIST's algorithm is OMAC? ... is the following algorithm safe? ... Or is it better to use a second secret key not calculated with the use of k? ...
    (sci.crypt)
Quantcast