Features a Keccak hashing support for .NET
Testing vectors:
- I have tested all the avaible Keccak bit sizes with some vectors (zero input, 'TEXT', ..) and their respective output against accesible web implementation of keccak, all the vectors succesfully passed.
Final statement:
I DO NOT TAKE ANY CREDITS OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS CODE (ONLY CREDIT FOR DOING SO ^^). I JUST EXTRACTED THIS CODE TO GAIN ONLY KECCAK SUPPORT FROM LARGER LIBRARY, PLEASE SUPPORT ORIGINAL AUTHOR!
- Original project: https://hashlib.codeplex.com
- Original code: https://hashlib.codeplex.com/SourceControl/latest#HashLib/Crypto/SHA3/Keccak.cs
Facts:
- Keccak (2012-2013) is original algorithm which evolved into SHA3 (2014-2015) standart by NIST, algorithms are same just parameters were changed by NIST and so outputs are different!
- Some people consider Keccak better because NIST is USA goverment agency that most likely works with other goverment agencies like [N/.S/.A]!
- It is known that some eliptic curves most likely contain an especialy crafted parameters in such a way that only [N/.S/.A] knowing this 'magic numbers' can later crack it, such parameters are not justified enough by NIST documentation to understand why they were choosen or how were they generated to be used as seeds in algorithms. This all makes sense because [N/.S/.A] can manipulate them this way while NIST can release such 'upgraded' algorithms without compromising final users (developers, companies, other goverment agencies). This works because no one knows choosen magic numbers that were used to calculate some of the constants and initialization vectors in choosen NIST algorithms. All in all, only our 'agency' can use them, everyone else (with high crypto knowledge) can only guess with little to no success. Everyone who is using such crafted algorithms from NIST is a possible target (if they consider you 'enemy', ofc), that is why SHA3 parameters were criticized by community, when they were choosen by NIST (process of choosing was not transparent).
- This does not mean that all NIST standarts are bad, it just means that some stuff was not chosen by NIST itself but was influenced or supplied by someone with close connection to the 'agency'.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG (backdoored RNG for ECC, proof of concept).
- https://safecurves.cr.yp.to (list of safe curves by D. J. Bernstein, look for NIST curves, not so safe really)
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=289795.0;all (discussion about bitcoin secp256k1 eliptic curve generated by Certicom (Canadian company), community conclusion is that curve is safe because peoples who designed it were able to to justify it).
By Łôvę ŁêŞş