Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[capture] Simple script for KMAC #217

Closed
nasahlpa opened this issue Nov 14, 2023 · 6 comments
Closed

[capture] Simple script for KMAC #217

nasahlpa opened this issue Nov 14, 2023 · 6 comments
Assignees

Comments

@nasahlpa
Copy link
Member

nasahlpa commented Nov 14, 2023

As the old capture.py file is not working anymore due to the repo restructure, we need to implement the KMAC capture.
Please use capture_aes.py as a boilerplate.

@m-temp
Copy link
Collaborator

m-temp commented Nov 20, 2023

I'm working on this. However, it will take some time to test it in the office.

@m-temp
Copy link
Collaborator

m-temp commented Nov 20, 2023

Technically KMAC (and SHA3) doesn't have a ciphertext, but a tag. In the past, we used the term ciphertext (and the associated fields) to refer to the Tag/Hash. Should we keep this naming?

@nasahlpa
Copy link
Member Author

I guess it would make sense to use the correct naming, .e.g, tag. I think this increases the readability of the code.

However, the new trace library currently only supports the ciphertext/plaintext/key field. It should be fairly easy to add new fields.

@m-temp
Copy link
Collaborator

m-temp commented Nov 22, 2023

There's a first draft (not PR yet) at 8d40089
The PR is merged. However, there there are two remaining issues:

  • still the old variable names
  • An AES instance is/was used to generate the next key/plaintext in non batch fvsr mode. However in batch mode the internal prng was used. I think this should be aligned in either case

@m-temp
Copy link
Collaborator

m-temp commented Dec 1, 2023

I've changed the priority, as the main task is done now. The new kmac capture script has now the same functionality as the old one. However I leave this issue open, as there are still some points to be discussed. See above.

Feel free to close this issue and track the remaining tasks in a different issue

@nasahlpa
Copy link
Member Author

nasahlpa commented Dec 4, 2023

Closing this issue as #229 was merged. Created new issues #239 #240

@nasahlpa nasahlpa closed this as completed Dec 4, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants