Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. And I trust you... why?

And I trust you... why?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
cryptographyc++comperformancequestion
24 Posts 12 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • C CPallini

    What is the problem? Do you fear the Ides of March?

    Veni, vidi, vici.

    X Offline
    X Offline
    Xiangyang Liu
    wrote on last edited by
    #4

    Maybe that's the day after his facebook account got hacked and all of his compromising photos stolen?

    My Younger Son & His "PET"

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • P peterchen

      I was looking for a reliable SHA256 - C/C++ implementation, and good things were pointing to Crypto++. With the downside that I need only a single function, not a framework to run all kinds of hash functions in, it looked fine. Until I read that excerpt:

      Version 5.6.1 released
       - fixed several bugs in the SHA-256 x86/x64 assembly code:
          incorrect hash on non-SSE2 x86 machines on non-aligned input
          incorrect hash on x86 machines when input crosses 0x80000000

      Version 5.6.0 released
        - improved AES and SHA-256 speed on x86 and x64

      Well, ok, happens to the best of us I guess. But let me ad some boilerplate decoration:

      8/9/2010 - Version 5.6.1 released
      3/15/2009 - Version 5.6.0 released

      Wait, what? 8/9/2010 - Version 5.6.1 released 3/15/2009 - Version 5.6.0 released Are you elephanting kidding me? [edit] Generating potentially incorrect SHA's for over a year? Well, never mind, I'll write it on my own, can't be that hard.[/sarcasm]

      FILETIME to time_t
      | FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy

      L Offline
      L Offline
      Lost User
      wrote on last edited by
      #5

      Apart from things happening in the 15th month, I see nothing odd there.

      W 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • P peterchen

        I was looking for a reliable SHA256 - C/C++ implementation, and good things were pointing to Crypto++. With the downside that I need only a single function, not a framework to run all kinds of hash functions in, it looked fine. Until I read that excerpt:

        Version 5.6.1 released
         - fixed several bugs in the SHA-256 x86/x64 assembly code:
            incorrect hash on non-SSE2 x86 machines on non-aligned input
            incorrect hash on x86 machines when input crosses 0x80000000

        Version 5.6.0 released
          - improved AES and SHA-256 speed on x86 and x64

        Well, ok, happens to the best of us I guess. But let me ad some boilerplate decoration:

        8/9/2010 - Version 5.6.1 released
        3/15/2009 - Version 5.6.0 released

        Wait, what? 8/9/2010 - Version 5.6.1 released 3/15/2009 - Version 5.6.0 released Are you elephanting kidding me? [edit] Generating potentially incorrect SHA's for over a year? Well, never mind, I'll write it on my own, can't be that hard.[/sarcasm]

        FILETIME to time_t
        | FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy

        E Offline
        E Offline
        Ennis Ray Lynch Jr
        wrote on last edited by
        #6

        How much does this "oft-updated" library cost? : )

        Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. I also do Android Programming as I find it a refreshing break from the MS. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost

        P 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • L Lost User

          Apart from things happening in the 15th month, I see nothing odd there.

          W Offline
          W Offline
          Wjousts
          wrote on last edited by
          #7

          I think the point is that it took them well over a year to fix what seems like a pretty serious bug.

          L OriginalGriffO 2 Replies Last reply
          0
          • P peterchen

            I was looking for a reliable SHA256 - C/C++ implementation, and good things were pointing to Crypto++. With the downside that I need only a single function, not a framework to run all kinds of hash functions in, it looked fine. Until I read that excerpt:

            Version 5.6.1 released
             - fixed several bugs in the SHA-256 x86/x64 assembly code:
                incorrect hash on non-SSE2 x86 machines on non-aligned input
                incorrect hash on x86 machines when input crosses 0x80000000

            Version 5.6.0 released
              - improved AES and SHA-256 speed on x86 and x64

            Well, ok, happens to the best of us I guess. But let me ad some boilerplate decoration:

            8/9/2010 - Version 5.6.1 released
            3/15/2009 - Version 5.6.0 released

            Wait, what? 8/9/2010 - Version 5.6.1 released 3/15/2009 - Version 5.6.0 released Are you elephanting kidding me? [edit] Generating potentially incorrect SHA's for over a year? Well, never mind, I'll write it on my own, can't be that hard.[/sarcasm]

            FILETIME to time_t
            | FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy

            E Offline
            E Offline
            Espen Harlinn
            wrote on last edited by
            #8

            Why not use CryptCreateHash[^] with CALG_SHA256 ?

            Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS My LinkedIn Profile

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • W Wjousts

              I think the point is that it took them well over a year to fix what seems like a pretty serious bug.

              L Offline
              L Offline
              Lost User
              wrote on last edited by
              #9

              Pretty serious bug? The first one may be a little serious, secretly corrupting the result like that.. but it's not very hard to notice and easy to work around. Seriously though, both of those bugs fall into the category of "will never happen anyway".

              P 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • W Wjousts

                I think the point is that it took them well over a year to fix what seems like a pretty serious bug.

                OriginalGriffO Offline
                OriginalGriffO Offline
                OriginalGriff
                wrote on last edited by
                #10

                Depends when they were made aware it existed. If all their testing was on SSE2 x86 or above machines, it could have been a year before they were even told there was a problem.

                Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water

                "I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
                "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • P peterchen

                  I was looking for a reliable SHA256 - C/C++ implementation, and good things were pointing to Crypto++. With the downside that I need only a single function, not a framework to run all kinds of hash functions in, it looked fine. Until I read that excerpt:

                  Version 5.6.1 released
                   - fixed several bugs in the SHA-256 x86/x64 assembly code:
                      incorrect hash on non-SSE2 x86 machines on non-aligned input
                      incorrect hash on x86 machines when input crosses 0x80000000

                  Version 5.6.0 released
                    - improved AES and SHA-256 speed on x86 and x64

                  Well, ok, happens to the best of us I guess. But let me ad some boilerplate decoration:

                  8/9/2010 - Version 5.6.1 released
                  3/15/2009 - Version 5.6.0 released

                  Wait, what? 8/9/2010 - Version 5.6.1 released 3/15/2009 - Version 5.6.0 released Are you elephanting kidding me? [edit] Generating potentially incorrect SHA's for over a year? Well, never mind, I'll write it on my own, can't be that hard.[/sarcasm]

                  FILETIME to time_t
                  | FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy

                  S Offline
                  S Offline
                  Single Step Debugger
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #11

                  If I recall correctly SHA-hash is a simple set of XOR operations. Better implement it yourself. Xoring buffers in C/C++ is a no brainer.

                  There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.

                  L 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • C CPallini

                    What is the problem? Do you fear the Ides of March?

                    Veni, vidi, vici.

                    P Offline
                    P Offline
                    peterchen
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #12

                    Over 16 months of "generating invalid SHA's". Just imagining the dungstorm of a pool of wrong-SHA'd data accumulated over a year.

                    FILETIME to time_t
                    | FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy

                    L 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • S Single Step Debugger

                      If I recall correctly SHA-hash is a simple set of XOR operations. Better implement it yourself. Xoring buffers in C/C++ is a no brainer.

                      There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.

                      L Offline
                      L Offline
                      Lost User
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #13

                      It's slightly more complicated..

                      S 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • L Lost User

                        It's slightly more complicated..

                        S Offline
                        S Offline
                        Single Step Debugger
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #14

                        It could be, what I’ve done was SHA-1, probably SHA256 is more complicated.

                        There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • P peterchen

                          I was looking for a reliable SHA256 - C/C++ implementation, and good things were pointing to Crypto++. With the downside that I need only a single function, not a framework to run all kinds of hash functions in, it looked fine. Until I read that excerpt:

                          Version 5.6.1 released
                           - fixed several bugs in the SHA-256 x86/x64 assembly code:
                              incorrect hash on non-SSE2 x86 machines on non-aligned input
                              incorrect hash on x86 machines when input crosses 0x80000000

                          Version 5.6.0 released
                            - improved AES and SHA-256 speed on x86 and x64

                          Well, ok, happens to the best of us I guess. But let me ad some boilerplate decoration:

                          8/9/2010 - Version 5.6.1 released
                          3/15/2009 - Version 5.6.0 released

                          Wait, what? 8/9/2010 - Version 5.6.1 released 3/15/2009 - Version 5.6.0 released Are you elephanting kidding me? [edit] Generating potentially incorrect SHA's for over a year? Well, never mind, I'll write it on my own, can't be that hard.[/sarcasm]

                          FILETIME to time_t
                          | FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy

                          U Offline
                          U Offline
                          unitrunker
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #15

                          Why did you wait 14 months to tell them? :)

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • P peterchen

                            I was looking for a reliable SHA256 - C/C++ implementation, and good things were pointing to Crypto++. With the downside that I need only a single function, not a framework to run all kinds of hash functions in, it looked fine. Until I read that excerpt:

                            Version 5.6.1 released
                             - fixed several bugs in the SHA-256 x86/x64 assembly code:
                                incorrect hash on non-SSE2 x86 machines on non-aligned input
                                incorrect hash on x86 machines when input crosses 0x80000000

                            Version 5.6.0 released
                              - improved AES and SHA-256 speed on x86 and x64

                            Well, ok, happens to the best of us I guess. But let me ad some boilerplate decoration:

                            8/9/2010 - Version 5.6.1 released
                            3/15/2009 - Version 5.6.0 released

                            Wait, what? 8/9/2010 - Version 5.6.1 released 3/15/2009 - Version 5.6.0 released Are you elephanting kidding me? [edit] Generating potentially incorrect SHA's for over a year? Well, never mind, I'll write it on my own, can't be that hard.[/sarcasm]

                            FILETIME to time_t
                            | FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy

                            C Offline
                            C Offline
                            Chris Losinger
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #16

                            peterchen wrote:

                            non-SSE2 x86

                            aka Pentium 3 or earlier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSE2[^]

                            image processing toolkits | batch image processing

                            L 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • P peterchen

                              I was looking for a reliable SHA256 - C/C++ implementation, and good things were pointing to Crypto++. With the downside that I need only a single function, not a framework to run all kinds of hash functions in, it looked fine. Until I read that excerpt:

                              Version 5.6.1 released
                               - fixed several bugs in the SHA-256 x86/x64 assembly code:
                                  incorrect hash on non-SSE2 x86 machines on non-aligned input
                                  incorrect hash on x86 machines when input crosses 0x80000000

                              Version 5.6.0 released
                                - improved AES and SHA-256 speed on x86 and x64

                              Well, ok, happens to the best of us I guess. But let me ad some boilerplate decoration:

                              8/9/2010 - Version 5.6.1 released
                              3/15/2009 - Version 5.6.0 released

                              Wait, what? 8/9/2010 - Version 5.6.1 released 3/15/2009 - Version 5.6.0 released Are you elephanting kidding me? [edit] Generating potentially incorrect SHA's for over a year? Well, never mind, I'll write it on my own, can't be that hard.[/sarcasm]

                              FILETIME to time_t
                              | FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy

                              L Offline
                              L Offline
                              Lost User
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #17

                              Now tell them that they're running late by almost 3 months to release version 5.6.2. :)

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • C Chris Losinger

                                peterchen wrote:

                                non-SSE2 x86

                                aka Pentium 3 or earlier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSE2[^]

                                image processing toolkits | batch image processing

                                L Offline
                                L Offline
                                Lost User
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #18

                                Or an AMD K7, which is slightly more recent than the P3, but not much.

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • L Lost User

                                  Pretty serious bug? The first one may be a little serious, secretly corrupting the result like that.. but it's not very hard to notice and easy to work around. Seriously though, both of those bugs fall into the category of "will never happen anyway".

                                  P Offline
                                  P Offline
                                  peterchen
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #19

                                  Serious because acuumulating wrong SHA's over months or even a year is a ventilator-hitting-rear-exhaust-product waiting to happen. In addition, the "wrong" SHA's may be collision-prone or not even stable.

                                  FILETIME to time_t
                                  | FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy

                                  L 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • E Ennis Ray Lynch Jr

                                    How much does this "oft-updated" library cost? : )

                                    Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. I also do Android Programming as I find it a refreshing break from the MS. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost

                                    P Offline
                                    P Offline
                                    peterchen
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #20

                                    But eyeballs! :cool:

                                    FILETIME to time_t
                                    | FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • P peterchen

                                      Serious because acuumulating wrong SHA's over months or even a year is a ventilator-hitting-rear-exhaust-product waiting to happen. In addition, the "wrong" SHA's may be collision-prone or not even stable.

                                      FILETIME to time_t
                                      | FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy

                                      L Offline
                                      L Offline
                                      Lost User
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #21

                                      Sure... if you have an ancient CPU, which you don't. Or if your buffer crosses 0x80000000, which it won't.

                                      P 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • P peterchen

                                        Over 16 months of "generating invalid SHA's". Just imagining the dungstorm of a pool of wrong-SHA'd data accumulated over a year.

                                        FILETIME to time_t
                                        | FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy

                                        L Offline
                                        L Offline
                                        Lost User
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #22

                                        Only for x86... Maybe they weren't much of a concern.

                                        Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.

                                        C 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • L Lost User

                                          Sure... if you have an ancient CPU, which you don't. Or if your buffer crosses 0x80000000, which it won't.

                                          P Offline
                                          P Offline
                                          peterchen
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #23

                                          harold aptroot wrote:

                                          if you have an ancient CPU,

                                          If I know beforehand, I can block customers running on this. Otherwise, I don't have much control over that. My clients are "very conservative", to say the least.

                                          harold aptroot wrote:

                                          Or if your buffer crosses 0x80000000, which it won't.

                                          If I know beforehand that I can't use /LARGEADDRESSAWARE, I can do that. Now, yes, the large address space bug is feckin' hard to detect (requires an experienced coder who knows the problem). However, the x86-non-SSE-codepath is pretty darn easy to test even on a system with SSE.

                                          FILETIME to time_t
                                          | FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups