You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I have tested 3 other implementations and, given the above input, they produce: D649A9CF8544E0B7FD8DB124C1E85CBD934D66D6660F8EC6F45D571B5146597A
It seems that all inputs of lengths between 56-63 bytes consistently produce a hash that does not match up with other implementations, so I suspect this implementation has a bug.
I have already confirmed that this is an implementation mistake in padding process. Due to this implementation mistake, the output will not be correct when the input length is from (64-8) to 63 bytes.
Example
Input:
ff27186ddc9b5f29a9c928583472f113c860b4781b24ea63852f211e48829fb7f93c8540e79aa3487f9789ddb0348e1a9090838f44d77fe7
Output:
F46E545D5B0D71AA45AC1790DFAD39DECE6AF7C22F966A361A35FEFAB5371E74
Info
I have tested 3 other implementations and, given the above input, they produce:
D649A9CF8544E0B7FD8DB124C1E85CBD934D66D6660F8EC6F45D571B5146597A
It seems that all inputs of lengths between 56-63 bytes consistently produce a hash that does not match up with other implementations, so I suspect this implementation has a bug.
The other implementations I tested were:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: