Re: speed of HMAC vs. Rijndael-CBCMAC?

["David A. McGrew" <mcgrew@cisco.com>]

Steve,

Steve Bellovin wrote:
> 
> Has anyone done any measurements on the relative speeds of a CBC-MAC
> using Rijndael (AES) vs. HMAC-MD5 or HMAC-SHA1?  Rijndael is very fast,
> and we may be able to eliminate some code in our implementations.
> 
>                 --Steve Bellovin

code elimination would be good.  I'd favor the use of UMAC over CBC MAC
though.  UMAC is designed to work with AES, is provably secure, and is
staggeringly fast.  UMAC is well described at
http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/umac/.  The creators of UMAC intended
to submit a draft on their mechanism, though I don't think that they
have done so yet.

I guess that you're not at the NIST workshop either - or are you always
online ;-)

David

---

Follow-Ups:

• Re: speed of HMAC vs. Rijndael-CBCMAC?
• From: Hugo Krawczyk <hugo@ee.technion.ac.il>

References:

• speed of HMAC vs. Rijndael-CBCMAC?
• From: Steve Bellovin <smb@research.att.com>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: NAT and IPsec
• Next by Date: Re: speed of HMAC vs. Rijndael-CBCMAC?
• Prev by thread: speed of HMAC vs. Rijndael-CBCMAC?
• Next by thread: Re: speed of HMAC vs. Rijndael-CBCMAC?
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread