Re: Cryptokit and HMAC-SHA256

[Sylvain Le Gall <sylvain@le-gall.net>]

Hello,

On 22-07-2010, Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de> wrote:
> Dario Teixeira <darioteixeira@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> If you decide to code the solution and provide the patch, I will be
>>> happy to apply it to cryptokit (if the main author of cryptokit accepts
>>> it, of course).
>>
>> I'm attaching the patches adding support for HMAC-SHA256 and HMAC-RIPEMD160
>> (I don't need the latter, but for the sake of completeness it seemed silly
>> not to support it as well).  Note that these are *very* straightforward
>> patches -- kudos to Xavier for making Cryptokit so easy to extend.
>>
>> The caveat is that I'm not a cryptographer.  I did, however, verify that
>> these new HMACs pass all the test cases listed in RFC4231 (for HMAC-SHA256)
>> and RFC2286 (for HMAC-RIPEMD160).
>>
>> Thanks for your attention!
>> Cheers,
>> Dario Teixeira
>
> While you are patching cryptokit anyway would it be possible to also add
> functions to work on Bigarrays?
>

Well in fact, HMAC-SHA256 and  HMAC-RIPEMD160 has been implemented in
the source code, but never released. So no patching involved.

> One huge advantage of bigarray is that the data region is allocated
> outside the GC heap and will never move. That means one can use
> enter_blocking_section() / leave_blocking_section() while calculating
> the checksum for a block of data. For multithreaded applications that
> can speed up the program by the number of cores present.
>

Submit a feature request with as much data as possible on the BTS:
https://forge.ocamlcore.org/tracker/?group_id=133

Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall