[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: test vectors for HMAC-SHA-1 - Test Data and Bad News
>C. Harald Koch (chk@border.com) said on 2/6/97 at 1:53 PM
>In message <01BC1429.F844BBC0@localhost>, Edward Russell writes:
>>
>> BSAFE SHA:
>> 4B 3A ED 5F 9F E4 01 59 B4 99 53 6F B8 A1 0C DF 3B C6 2B 4C
>>
>> CYLINK SHA:
>> 4C 2B C6 3B DF 0C A1 B8 6F 53 99 B4 59 01 E4 9F 5F ED 3A 4B
>
>I've seen this before. There are two different representations of hash codes
>floating around; "big endian" and "little endian". Note that the above
>hashes are identical with the *bytes* listed in the opposite order.
>
>I couldn't tell you which one is 'correct' though :-)
>
>--
O.K., O.K., C. Harald Koch gets the "Mirror Image" award for spotting what
should have been obvious to us. But understand, we're running on only a
handful of hours of sleep trying to get us all to interoperate. :-) I don't think
I would characterize this as an "endian" problem though as that as more
to do with byte arrangement within shorts and longs - I doubt the problem
is caused by one platform compiled with the wrong byte order defined.
This is good news in that we won't need cryptographers and mathematicians
to analyze or hand perform the correct results. We just need a decision on
which way is to be deemed the "correct" way. I have a coin...
We'll try to establish if the same is true at the end of a Diffie Hellman exchange,
but that will be a little trickier.
Follow-Ups: