IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: aes128gcm: is the 1st example wrong?

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Tue, 17 January 2017 03:19 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0796129992 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:19:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 b6M0hzO9FVvr for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:19:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F70E12998E for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:19:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cTKGT-0003jO-Ou for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 03:16:53 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 03:16:53 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cTKGT-0003jO-Ou@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1cTKGQ-0003hi-IB for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 03:16:50 +0000
Received: from mail-qt0-f171.google.com ([209.85.216.171]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1cTKGB-0004Yl-4w for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 03:16:45 +0000
Received: by mail-qt0-f171.google.com with SMTP id k15so134830142qtg.3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:16:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JUiETncinCv5rsTsw9WnhEq7ncMsl5DL7Ys9ErC10TA=; b=eJx9SXpYCQOijM7Eyz9/aob4P8gWYbpw9LEfVYlnUlQ3k9FAGev1YmjoeTtsRWehy+ QLFDjCYkVEZ7vLgx9wzz6UviMt4QNLS6jnVGFmjzZ/5ATV5I+ufUDkkgpvrkdhEZP4e+ LpDrH89br/wDi8k/+caQLd6ZQ8LICgDSy1gIhi9YQiRb/8c1nVxhrt7bD10qvZ1HKYEY Q7yP/TMQtYynuub2C2Q+Aj2KTwms1pkOfl1umq+sKbIOiBLSOOqZpvy9BbvNEBOsrwgD ASmncIukvnJr2QUisro/qHr2qWA85o2/lDsCfsI00zd4zKFRA8Zb5Nk2U0fBO6JGW0zS GqEA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JUiETncinCv5rsTsw9WnhEq7ncMsl5DL7Ys9ErC10TA=; b=Uk9Et5EFh28sNRidbsN+s9cyBKCIwLlVDlxahORJPeGixoVM9QBslsvxgtrRppCgla yQWCt4I1xG8ORSKORHmw8H2o8aEhkVCiKVI3gQg3Z152H/i5ZzCXOMitKgUZHgmh/3vQ KJSJkopv1q3/v0pO9ejUPydhhxAGwziz94lsg+TnJPU6+O3RGrf91UmYZdBGsOunZ6ol 1t6IIYIoTyQTvlF2Eb8PtE3EAfsObUj65ktBcfla8gsa2jEgM8V4wNjHz3kNztUVZXLK L72nTawI1e584jpAddSvliL9Du2j2ri7Md4skbYXXy0n8OYZ/mZPZX0wdsZPhoKwS1JB K7Eg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJKULye9bLDyHIYCnZBBFgxsETYKiUWuSU1T2UGIRyBft0ELAF+mgLOC+GtpYpIHdB825uz6pnjmD+6ZQ==
X-Received: by 10.200.49.249 with SMTP id i54mr34741968qte.3.1484622969247; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:16:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.19.112 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:16:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <SYXPR01MB1615D5823473E6A9B5F0C80DE57C0@SYXPR01MB1615.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
References: <SYXPR01MB1615D5823473E6A9B5F0C80DE57C0@SYXPR01MB1615.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:16:08 +1300
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWE38wbhKfp+5nF1hfn7qH4-6Uk4QMGBKgGL6-f_em_KA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Manger, James" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.216.171; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-qt0-f171.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.230, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cTKGB-0004Yl-4w 854d7d6025e9d3f17823b68f7eaceb56
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: aes128gcm: is the 1st example wrong?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnWE38wbhKfp+5nF1hfn7qH4-6Uk4QMGBKgGL6-f_em_KA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33300
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 17 January 2017 at 15:26, Manger, James
<James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com> wrote:
> IKM = B33e_VeFrOyIHwFTIfmesA
> salt = sJvlboCWzB5jr8hI_q9cOQ
>
> Draft gives:
> PRK = MLAQxt_DHjM15cdlyU1oUnjq7TFlzToGTkdRmvvxVBw
>
> But I get:
> PRK = Mg9ErPx3DpJfkz72kj7Yvx369iqvd4Fmf7tOMTdXELo

Ahh, so do I.  Strange.  I ran those examples many times.  And I even
have unit tests against them....

...except that the unit test has the key "6Aqf1aDH8lSxLyCpoCnAqg",
which I expect will work for you.  Fixed it in 622f21d.

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status