[Cfrg] GMAC algorithm
Erik Andersen <era@x500.eu> Wed, 08 April 2020 14:59 UTC
Return-Path: <era@x500.eu>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C58C3A0D86 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 07:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.004
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.004 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)" header.d=x500.eu
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z0EnOCJOtOUu for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 07:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outscan1.mf.dandomain.dk (outscan1.mf.dandomain.dk [212.237.249.58]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 308CB3A0D7D for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 07:59:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by outscan1.mf.dandomain.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3939C4068C20 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 16:59:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from outscan1.mf.dandomain.dk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (outscan1.mf.dandomain.dk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v5vcCjWPAcCc for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 16:59:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail-proxy.dandomain.dk (dilvs03.dandomain.net [194.150.112.64]) by outscan1.mf.dandomain.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 404D54068C48 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 16:59:48 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=x500.eu; s=dandomain; t=1586357988; bh=tQsZ0mb5mkxjp25qdeJE1BD1b+WnSjeRjyUIxkGRT2A=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:From; b=bBfFeLc+KIC/sj6PVFPzdK/zPu97L2YexzkhvhIJeC/SjcVPu5AdIBNTjUi3uOajq CEhsFxaDzi1RHFQUyATTJeOp+QSZoqdtEUBkKTP2qBn6NRlQLpUizuKZILb9+TRGEy 1Q8oF3E+ddPr59Suk1YZ2AfFFMESMb+L1vSqNnAGGv6LlUpkkBRiU4yNNvC1v4qKOv H5hzt4zcMuF2q3Py+mBj+W8kD1hwUara1dh9QqhxvdpxaIQ8KT6qxDEaKIXEugZTog 70s+q9k4sRgyYSfyFuUHh8m23TQDkCk+67bZcZTk9iCdzBQdsZLcR8U1cpEVTkafla QYfeIEH1JBM2g==
From: Erik Andersen <era@x500.eu>
To: Cfrg <cfrg@irtf.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 16:59:48 +0200
Message-ID: <002901d60db6$59a1e740$0ce5b5c0$@x500.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002A_01D60DC7.1D2B0560"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AdYNqYXQlErMXiOsRzOXZIyjj/0aWg==
Content-Language: en-gb
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/nhR6qTmPHe4cOhbAlcYNm8WCNok>
Subject: [Cfrg] GMAC algorithm
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 14:59:54 -0000
I am trying to find the exact definition of the GMAC algorithm, inclusive the OID. I have checked ISO/IEC 9797-3, which refer to ISO/IEC 18033-3. They seems to use an OID structure very different from NIST and IETF. For example, for AES they use the key length as a parameter, while NIST and IETF defines a separate algorithm for each key length. Also, the OIDs are quite different. What is the IETF view on the GMAC algorithm? Best regards, Erik
- [Cfrg] GMAC algorithm Erik Andersen
- Re: [Cfrg] GMAC algorithm Michael StJohns