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

Feature/doc (only crypt.tex + changes) #54

Merged
merged 28 commits into from Apr 25, 2017
Merged

Feature/doc (only crypt.tex + changes) #54

merged 28 commits into from Apr 25, 2017

Conversation

sjaeckel
Copy link
Member

@sjaeckel sjaeckel commented Oct 9, 2014

No description provided.

@buggywhip
Copy link
Contributor

In crypt.tex (add SHA512/t documentation) it says:

"The other hashes such as the SHA-1, SHA-2 (that includes SHA-512, SHA-512/384, SHA-384, SHA-512/256, SHA-256 and SHA-224) and TIGER-192 are still considered secure for all purposes you would normally use a hash for."

IMO SHA-1 should be removed from this list.

According to NIST, SHA-1 is being depreciated and in some cases even disallowed. See http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-57/sp800-57_part1_rev3_general.pdf, Table 4, page 67.

For the EU's position see http://www.ecrypt.eu.org/documents/D.SPA.20.pdf, Section 10.2, page 50.

Other sources corroborate.

@buggywhip
Copy link
Contributor

Re: update changes document

Consider changing "the necessary stuff to easier include libtomcrypt in a foreign language like python" to "the necessary stuff to more easily call libtomcrypt from a dynamic language like Python". ...although I do appreciate the humor. ;-)

@karel-m
Copy link
Member

karel-m commented Feb 27, 2017

Although I have not went through the changes in crypt.tex I am for merging this PR into develop.

@sjaeckel if you are not quite happy with the doc update in this PR I vote at least for cherry-picking the changes to all other files except crypt.tex

@sjaeckel
Copy link
Member Author

I think it'd be fine to pick all changes besides crypt.tex and changes to develop and rebase the rest on top of it.

My original plan was to merge this branch right before tagging the first RC.

karel-m added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 28, 2017
part of feature/doc changes from #54
@karel-m karel-m force-pushed the feature/doc branch 2 times, most recently from a0cf14d to b7a4a2f Compare February 28, 2017 18:54
@karel-m karel-m changed the title Feature/doc Feature/doc (only crypt.tex + changes) Feb 28, 2017
@karel-m
Copy link
Member

karel-m commented Feb 28, 2017

As agreed, now in this PR only crypt.tex + changes the rest is merged into develop.

@sjaeckel
Copy link
Member Author

@karel-m If you also think ffccf4e is fine I'd just cherry-pick it to develop

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Changes Unknown when pulling 1bb7c43 on feature/doc into ** on develop**.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Changes Unknown when pulling 8516777 on feature/doc into ** on develop**.

Copy link
Member

@karel-m karel-m left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The changes (doc additions) here are IMO OK. Except that there are still some undocumented areas.

I propose merging this PR to develop + creating a new issue (not PR) like "Polish documentation" with a checklist like the one in the main post of this PR.

Copy link
Collaborator

@ksherlock ksherlock left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

\begin{figure}[h] puts it "approximately here". a couple of the figures (ECC Key Strength and Built--In Software Hashes, specifically) are moved out of place.

\begin{figure}[H] (requires \usepackage{float}) puts them in the right place. I also tried [h!] and [ht!] but [H] was the only way to keep the ECC Key Strength in the correct location.

@sjaeckel sjaeckel mentioned this pull request Apr 25, 2017
29 tasks
@sjaeckel
Copy link
Member Author

@ksherlock reviewed 18 hours ago

we'll address that in #197

@sjaeckel sjaeckel merged commit 93317a1 into develop Apr 25, 2017
@sjaeckel sjaeckel deleted the feature/doc branch May 10, 2017 14:18
@stuartpb
Copy link

How are people supposed to read the documentation if you've removed doc/crypt.pdf? Forcing them to download and compile the library from source just to read the documentation seems a little baroque.

@stuartpb
Copy link

stuartpb commented May 15, 2017

Also, looking at the last release (https://github.com/libtom/libtomcrypt/blob/b234e6b4cafba8f8cd08036f0d34661f5f700b64/doc/crypt.pdf), is there no documentation for LibTomMath / TomsFastMath?

EDIT: Never mind, found it: http://www.gtoal.com/src/mobi/clit18/libtommath-0.41/bn.pdf

@sjaeckel
Copy link
Member Author

sjaeckel commented May 15, 2017

@stuartpb please download the tarballs of the latest release, not development snapshot, there's the pdf included. See www.libtom.net for direct links.

This also applies to ltm and tfm. As they are separate libraries they have their own documentation.

EDIT: Please use the appropriate documentation to the version you're using, not some ancient pdf you found in the tubes.

@libtom libtom locked and limited conversation to collaborators May 15, 2017
@sjaeckel sjaeckel removed their assignment Oct 9, 2017
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

7 participants