# Re: FCS coming up?

David Brownell (db@Eng)
Mon, 08 Mar 1999 20:33:59 -0800

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Frank Yellin: "Previous mail"
- Previous message: Jan Luehe: "Re: FCS coming up?"
- Maybe in reply to: Frank Yellin: "FCS coming up?"
- Next in thread: Jan Luehe: "Re: FCS coming up?"

    Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 20:33:59 -0800

    From: David Brownell <db@Eng>

    To: Jan Luehe <Jan.Luehe@Eng>

    Subject: Re: FCS coming up?

> * <p>If this cipher requires any algorithm parameters that cannot be
> * derived from the given <code>key</code>, the underlying cipher
> * implementation is supposed to generate the required parameters itself
> * (using provider-specific default or random values) if it is being
> * initialized for encryption, and raise an
> * <code>InvalidKeyException</code> if it is being
> * initialized for decryption.

Perhaps it's the WORA tester in me ... but shouldn't that
read "algorithm-specific default values" for encryption,
and also for decryption?

If it's provider-specific, then two programs using different
implementations of the same algorithm will get different
behavior. No "write once run anywhere". In effect it's
not the same algorithm at all.

Similarly, if it's random, it's not going to be useful for
two parties to communicate, since they'll both have as a
rule different values for those parameters. Basically it'd
be a write-only bitbucket.

Also, why would decryption behave differently?

- Dave

- Next message: Frank Yellin: "Previous mail"
- Previous message: Jan Luehe: "Re: FCS coming up?"
- Maybe in reply to: Frank Yellin: "FCS coming up?"
- Next in thread: Jan Luehe: "Re: FCS coming up?"