[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: speed of HMAC vs. Rijndael-CBCMAC?
The delay in publishing the UMAC draft has been my fault.
I have finally submitted it.
I will send a message about this algorithm when the draft
gets actually posted in the internet-drafts directory.
While UMAC speed and security are great it certainly does not provide
the benefit of code elimination. UMAC requires Rijndael plus
non-trivial additional code (see http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/umac/
where optimized code is provided -- currently using RC6)
Hugo
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, David A. McGrew wrote:
> 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
>
References: