Initial ASCON hash256 and AEAD128 support based on NIST SP 800-232 ipd #8307
Conversation
julek-wolfssl
force-pushed
the
ascon
branch
2 times, most recently
from
bd2fa1e to
e8b9bc4
Compare
|
retest this please |
|
|
||
| /* KATs taken from https://github.com/ascon/ascon-c */ | ||
|
|
||
| /* crypto_hash/asconhash256/LWC_HASH_KAT_256.txt |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
overlong lines added:
wolfcrypt/test/ascon-kat.h:32 { 0x0B, 0x3B, 0xE5, 0x85, 0x0F, 0x2F, 0x6B, 0x98, 0xCA, 0xF2, 0x9F, 0x8F, 0xDE, 0xA8, 0x9B, 0x64, 0xA1, 0xFA, 0x70, 0xAA, 0x24, 0x9B, 0x8F, 0x83, 0x9B, 0xD5, 0x3B, 0xAA, 0x30, 0x4D, 0x92, 0xB2 },
wolfcrypt/test/ascon-kat.h:33 { 0x07, 0x28, 0x62, 0x10, 0x35, 0xAF, 0x3E, 0xD2, 0xBC, 0xA0, 0x3B, 0xF6, 0xFD, 0xE9, 0x00, 0xF9, 0x45, 0x6F, 0x53, 0x30, 0xE4, 0xB5, 0xEE, 0x23, 0xE7, 0xF6, 0xA1, 0xE7, 0x02, 0x91, 0xBC, 0x80 },
wolfcrypt/test/ascon-kat.h:34 { 0x61, 0x15, 0xE7, 0xC9, 0xC4, 0x08, 0x1C, 0x27, 0x97, 0xFC, 0x8F, 0xE1, 0xBC, 0x57, 0xA8, 0x36, 0xAF, 0xA1, 0xC5, 0x38, 0x1E, 0x55, 0x6D, 0xD5, 0x83, 0x86, 0x0C, 0xA2, 0xDF, 0xB4, 0x8D, 0xD2 },
wolfcrypt/test/ascon-kat.h:35 { 0x26, 0x5A, 0xB8, 0x9A, 0x60, 0x9F, 0x5A, 0x05, 0xDC, 0xA5, 0x7E, 0x83, 0xFB, 0xBA, 0x70, 0x0F, 0x9A, 0x2D, 0x2C, 0x42, 0x11, 0xBA, 0x4C, 0xC9, 0xF0, 0xA1, 0xA3, 0x69, 0xE1, 0x7B, 0x91, 0x5C },
wolfcrypt/test/ascon-kat.h:36 { 0xD7, 0xE4, 0xC7, 0xED, 0x9B, 0x8A, 0x32, 0x5C, 0xD0, 0x8B, 0x9E, 0xF2, 0x59, 0xF8, 0x87, 0x70, 0x54, 0xEC, 0xD8, 0x30, 0x4F, 0xE1, 0xB2, 0xD7, 0xFD, 0x84, 0x71, 0x37, 0xDF, 0x67, 0x27, 0xEE },
wolfcrypt/test/ascon-kat.h:37 { 0xC7, 0xB2, 0x89, 0x62, 0xD4, 0xF5, 0xC2, 0x21, 0x1F, 0x46, 0x6F, 0x83, 0xD3, 0xC5, 0x7A, 0xE1, 0x50, 0x43, 0x87, 0xE2, 0xA3, 0x26, 0x94, 0x97, 0x47, 0xA8, 0x37, 0x64, 0x47, 0xA6, 0xBB, 0x51 },
wolfcrypt/test/ascon-kat.h:38 { 0xDC, 0x0C, 0x67, 0x48, 0xAF, 0x8F, 0xFE, 0x63, 0xE1, 0x08, 0x4A, 0xA3, 0xE5, 0x78, 0x6A, 0x19, 0x46, 0x85, 0xC8, 0x8C, 0x21, 0x34, 0x8B, 0x29, 0xE1, 0x84, 0xFB, 0x50, 0x40, 0x97, 0x03, 0xBC },
wolfcrypt/test/ascon-kat.h:39 { 0x3E, 0x4D, 0x27, 0x3B, 0xA6, 0x9B, 0x3B, 0x9C, 0x53, 0x21, 0x61, 0x07, 0xE8, 0x8B, 0x75, 0xCD, 0xBE, 0xED, 0xBC, 0xBF, 0x8F, 0xAF, 0x02, 0x19, 0xC3, 0x92, 0x8A, 0xB6, 0x2B, 0x11, 0x65, 0x77 },
[...and more...]
check-source-text fail_K```
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think its acceptable to have overlong lines in the KAT test data. I'm asking @douzzer if there is any way to suppress this warning.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
fail_K is the "unknown macros" subtest. the overlong-line notes are purely informational -- indeed it would just be silly to make that a hard warning.
Implemented based on the NIST Initial Public Draft "NIST SP 800-232 ipd". Testing based on KAT's available at https://github.com/ascon/ascon-c. Added configuration for testing in github action.
| @@ -6044,6 +6044,17 @@ then | |||
| AM_CFLAGS="$AM_CFLAGS -DHAVE_XCHACHA" | |||
| fi | |||
|
|
|||
| # ASCON | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should it be part of experimental or all yet?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Its a complete but limited implementation. Its fair to list it under experimental for now. Should I require WOLFSSL_EXPERIMENTAL_SETTINGS to enable ASCON for now?
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| int wc_AsconHash256_Init(wc_AsconHash256* a) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this have heap hint and devId for future API planning or just add an ex version when that time comes? Same for wc_AsconHash256_New
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think those options fit more into an _ex version of the API. This one should be the simplest case that should cover most use cases.
Implemented based on the NIST Initial Public Draft "NIST SP 800-232 ipd". Testing based on KAT's available at https://github.com/ascon/ascon-c. Added configuration for testing in github action.