RE: test vectors for HMAC-SHA-1

Tom Markham <markham@sctc.com> Thu, 06 February 1997 21:31 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa10824; 6 Feb 97 16:31 EST
Received: from portal.ex.tis.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23750; 6 Feb 97 16:31 EST
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id QAA14110 for ipsec-outgoing; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 16:21:46 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 15:17:55 -0600
From: Tom Markham <markham@sctc.com>
Message-Id: <199702062117.PAA23596@jasmin.sctc.com>
To: ipsec@tis.com
Subject: RE: test vectors for HMAC-SHA-1
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk

> O.K., O.K., C. Harald Koch gets the "Mirror Image" award for spotting what
> should have been obvious to us.

I would suggest that keys be picked which will identify problems with
byte ordering in the keys.  The key below is the same for big endian
and little endian. Thus, the Cylink results are correct if you reverse the
byte ordering of the key and results. 

>HMAC KEY =
>0x0b, 0x0b, 0x0b, 0x0b, 0x0b, 0x0b, 0x0b, 0x0b, 0x0b, 0x0b, 0x0b, 0x0b,
0x0b, 0x0b, 0x0b, 0x0b

I suggest using a key such as 
 0x00 0x01, 0x02, 0x03, 0x04, 0x05, 0x06, 0x07, 0x08, 0x09, 0x0a, 0x0b, 0x0c,
 0x0d, 0x0e, 0x0f


I've been bit by this dog before,

Tom Markham