Skip to content

Align behaviour of CTR and SIC modes in the JCE API. #19

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

timw
Copy link
Contributor

@timw timw commented Jul 4, 2013

CTR and SIC are implemented with the same underlying engine, so make their behaviour in the JCE API consistent (previously SIC would fail on 64 bit block ciphers, while CTR would not).

@ghost ghost assigned bcgit Jul 8, 2013
@bcgit
Copy link
Collaborator

bcgit commented Jul 26, 2013

We had a bit of a discussion about this, but we can't make use of this patch.

I know this is going to sound bizarre (or maybe just old fashioned) but there's a reason for the difference.

Originally SIC was specified as being available for only 128 bit block ciphers or greater (in some document that I can no longer find) this is why if you specify SIC it requires it, if you specify CTR it doesn't. It may sound a bit pedantic but this also means that if you see the use of SIC in BC you are certain the algorithm has a 128 bit or greater block size - this kind of certainty does mean something to some people (auditors for one example...). I'm aware that a look at Wikipedia will tell me that I'm probably one of the few people on the planet that is aware of this, but as we've established a "contract" on this one already, it seems best we keep it this way, as people may be relying on this in some fashion.

@bcgit bcgit closed this Jul 26, 2013
@timw
Copy link
Contributor Author

timw commented Jul 26, 2013

Yeah, I suspected this might have 'mysterious' origins :) Forgot to mention that in the pull request.

@bcgit bcgit removed their assignment May 26, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants