<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[wolfSSL - Embedded SSL Library — [SOLVED] Bug and/or Wrong docs for Hmac?]]></title>
		<link>https://www.wolfssl.com/forums/topic584-solved-bug-andor-wrong-docs-for-hmac.html</link>
		<atom:link href="https://www.wolfssl.com/forums/feed-rss-topic584.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<description><![CDATA[The most recent posts in [SOLVED] Bug and/or Wrong docs for Hmac?.]]></description>
		<lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2014 15:50:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>PunBB</generator>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: [SOLVED] Bug and/or Wrong docs for Hmac?]]></title>
			<link>https://www.wolfssl.com/forums/post1751.html#p1751</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Hi Demetri,</p><p>Yes, including the options.h header should be common practice in applications using wolfSSL embedded SSL.&nbsp; I&#039;ll take a look at our docs and see where we can make this more clear to end users.</p><p>Sounds like an interesting project!&nbsp; When you put out a release, do you mind sending us a link?&nbsp; Not only would it be interesting to look over, but we&#039;d be willing to add your project to our Community page as well (<a href="http://wolfssl.com/yaSSL/Community.html">http://wolfssl.com/yaSSL/Community.html</a>).&nbsp; If so, an email to info@wolfssl.com would be best!</p><p>Thanks,<br />Chris</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (chrisc)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2014 15:50:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.wolfssl.com/forums/post1751.html#p1751</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: [SOLVED] Bug and/or Wrong docs for Hmac?]]></title>
			<link>https://www.wolfssl.com/forums/post1748.html#p1748</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Chris, thanks for your help! That solved the problem. Should I generally include options.h in all the projects I link with wolfSSL? If so that&#039;s easy, I just didn&#039;t realize that was necessary.</p><p>As for what we&#039;re doing, I&#039;m happy to share. We&#039;re building a distributed computing client (which will be released as GPL/AGPL) with strong identity management and network security. wolfSSL has been very pleasant to work with <img src="https://www.wolfssl.com/forums/img/smilies/smile.png" width="15" height="15" alt="smile" /></p><p>Thanks,<br />Demetri</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (demetrispanos)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2014 23:18:01 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.wolfssl.com/forums/post1748.html#p1748</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: [SOLVED] Bug and/or Wrong docs for Hmac?]]></title>
			<link>https://www.wolfssl.com/forums/post1747.html#p1747</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Hi Demetri,</p><p>It looks like your test program may be compiled with mismatched configure options (compared to how wolfSSL was compiled).&nbsp; Can you try adding an include for &lt;wolfssl/options.h&gt; before the other wolfSSL includes in your test file?&nbsp; This solves your problem when tested on our side here.</p><p>Do you mind if I ask what you&#039;re working on?</p><p>Thanks,<br />Chris</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (chrisc)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2014 23:08:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.wolfssl.com/forums/post1747.html#p1747</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: [SOLVED] Bug and/or Wrong docs for Hmac?]]></title>
			<link>https://www.wolfssl.com/forums/post1745.html#p1745</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>In the unlikely case this affects anything: I am also building with -DMAX_FP_BITS=8192 (for 4096 bit RSA). I&#039;ve tried disabling that and using the default bit width with no observable difference in the HMAC behavior from the original post. </p><p>(I understand that the HMAC shouldn&#039;t involve any big-integer arithmetic; I just want to make sure all my build options are available for review).</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (demetrispanos)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:22:53 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.wolfssl.com/forums/post1745.html#p1745</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[[SOLVED] Bug and/or Wrong docs for Hmac?]]></title>
			<link>https://www.wolfssl.com/forums/post1744.html#p1744</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>I&#039;ve attached a minimal (~15 lines of code) program reproducing what seems to be either:</p><p>1) a bug in the implementation of HMAC-SHA256 (I know this seems unlikely)<br />or<br />2) a very confusing piece of example text in the manual (but I&#039;ve literally copy/pasted the example code)</p><p>In a nutshell, changing the amount of space allocated for a stack-allocated output buffer (BEYOND the minimum size required for the expected output) seems to have strange effects on the results. So either something is wrong or I&#039;m grossly misunderstanding what the manual is asking me to do.</p><p>I&#039;ve pasted the correct output, erroneous output, and what I believe to be the relevant manual snippet in a&nbsp; comment inside the test file.</p><p>I&#039;m configuring with the following options:</p><p>--enable-sha512 --enable-aesgcm --enable-static --enable-dh --enable-opensslextra</p><p>I&#039;ve tried playing with the options and I haven&#039;t seen any change in behavior.</p><p>I get the same behavior on 2.9 as on 3.2 but I haven&#039;t tested any other versions.</p><p>Can anyone reproduce this? Or point out what I&#039;m misunderstanding about the example code?</p><p>Thanks,<br />Demetri</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (demetrispanos)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2014 18:44:19 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.wolfssl.com/forums/post1744.html#p1744</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
