<html><head></head><body>
<p>Hi Levente,</p>
<p>Here is a new release of CryptographyHashing-rww.15. It is not
linked up through dependencies, so load it after. It supports
SHA512WithPrimitive and SHA512NonPrimitive and passes all tests.
CryptoGreen for SHA512, with the shiny, new SHA2Plugin and
without. Find plugins here, for linux64x64:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.dropbox.com/home/Callisto%20House/squeak-crypto-plugins">https://www.dropbox.com/home/Callisto%20House/squeak-crypto-plugins</a>.</p>
<p>Here is this working implementation of SHA512. The naming ought
to be without prefix for th ecore classes. I have no problem
whatsoever if we were to rebase your work as the defining
implementation for all of thosew funcrtions, using one plugin.
That's something wonderful. We should use you hashFunction and
rename without prefix. Tests separate, that's fashionable. We can
figure out the mc config later. <br/>
</p>
<p>publish your work on, then I will link your solution into
dependencies.<br/>
</p>
<h1>CryptographyHashing-ul.16</h1>
<h1>CryptographyHashing-rww.15 (Release)</h1>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="mediumLabel">File:</td>
<td><a href="http://www.squeaksource.com/Cryptography/CryptographyHashing-rww.15.mcz">CryptographyHashing-rww.15.mcz</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="label">Author:</td>
<td><a href="http://www.squeaksource.com/@x4F_VDyHPTW39OmM/1dY6OOdf?24">Robert
Withers</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="label">Timestamp:</td>
<td>10 March 2020 9:57:39 pm</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="label">UUID:</td>
<td>b7df722e-ab05-4465-97ef-deeffb0212d0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="label">Ancestors:</td>
<td><a href="http://www.squeaksource.com/@x4F_VDyHPTW39OmM/1dY6OOdf?25">CryptographyHashing-rww.14</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="label">Dependencies:</td>
<td><a href="http://www.squeaksource.com/@x4F_VDyHPTW39OmM/1dY6OOdf?26">CryptographyCore-rww.5</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="label">Release:</td>
<td>This is a release that can be read by anybody.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="label">Message:</td>
<td>adapt to new #primCopyoubleWords:intoBytes:.
<br/>
CryptoGreen for SHA512, with the shiny, new SHA2Plugin and
without. Find plugins here, for linux64x64:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.dropbox.com/home/Callisto%20House/squeak-crypto-plugins">https://www.dropbox.com/home/Callisto%20House/squeak-crypto-plugins</a>.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br/>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br/>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">rttyk, r<br/>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br/>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/10/20 4:48 PM, Levente Uzonyi
wrote:<br/>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:alpine.DEB.2.02.2003102130190.9468@login03.caesar.elte.hu">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi Robert,
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020, Robert wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi Levente,
On 3/9/20 5:14 PM, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi Robert,
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020, Robert wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi Levente,
Have you seen my other posts on ProCrypto and the work I did to the
Hashing package? After I ported your code, the size went up to 730 kb,
while the rest of Cryptography was about 270 kb. So there was a lot of
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Yes, I've seen your messages.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Too many...I ride like a storm. Always have done so. I do hope that you
are not upset about my ripping SHA512 into a Crypto package. I feel very
strongly that a commitment by provider implementers doing Crypto to
subclass the Root classes: BlockCipher, HashFunction, BlockCipherMode,
and importantly adopt the common protocol inherited from those classes.
Then all Crypto implemeters will be able to easily interoperate.
Producing a lookup interface, much like Java's provider lookup, will be
a step we could take forwards with the shared and interoperable Crypto
library packages.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Are there any other "Crypo implementers" having hash functions? I doubt
it. So, I don't think we need anything like this. We need simple code
that works.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">As I mentioned in my previous email, the size of the package is large
because of the test strings. I split the package up into Core and Tests.
If you have a look at the Hasher repository, you'll find that
HAHasher-Core.1 is 24.6 kB, while HAHasher-Tests.1 is 650kB.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I see, alright, that's fair dinkum. I also feel strongly that a minimum
of tests be carried within the primary package for some code. If you
look at the Crypto packages, you'll see Hashing tests in hashing, Random
tests in Random, Cipher tests in Cipher. This way it is easy to run
them, off a CI server or what have you. The tests come with the code, is
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">As others wrote, this is not a good idea. You don't need those tests in
your production images.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">a principle I try to follow. I suspect that maybe we could reduce the
tests, for SHA512, to a minimum. I will look into this. I also feel like
having a separate package with more robust testing is fair dinkum. I
think that would make a good solution here, where you could have a
couple of tests with the package and a separate Tests package for the
rest of them.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">By bloat I didn't mean that the size of the package is too large. I meant
that there are too many methods and classes are added to the environment
in a non-isolated way (no class prefixes, extension methods). And when you
only need a small chunk of those, you've got no way to load just that.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">bloat. As we already have solutions for SHA1 and SHA256, I really only
needed SHA512. So I removed all the other classes and tests and ported
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I think community needs come first, so having all SHA2 hash functions is
better than just having SHA512.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Alright, how does this proposed approach grab you? I have a Hashing
package as a part of the ProCrypto offering. Dependencies are setup in
Monticello for Random to pull in that Hashing package, which has all our
traditional functions and now has SHA512, thanks to your offering. Here
is my further thought, If you interface with the common Crypto
superclasses (reclass HAHashFunction under HashFunction) and adopt the
Crypto protocol, your package as a provider package that could be loaded
side by side with Crypto's Hashing package. You would naturally extend
our offerings. This is my approach with SSL and SSH, as the port
progresses so slooowly, running as a specialization of the ParrotTalk
code, so it just fits in and works as an option. I really see a
potential explosion of such solutions, if colleges and universities get
onboard. *dreaming about a better future*
Would this solution work well for you, Levente?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I did't clean up and restructure HashFunction in Hasher just to
reintroduce the stuff I removed/replaced.
Hasher is a replacement for the whole HashFunction hierarchy.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">SHA512 onto the HashFunction defined in CryptoCore. I removed all the
RGThirtyTwoBitRegisters and I plan to move this ported SHA512 off of
using a RGSixtyFourBitRegister, to eliminate that code. The size is
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I see no value in doing that. The code is there, complete, ready for
integration.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">As an alternate Crypto package, folks could choose your solution. This
way we can align our efforts together and mix and match solution
packages. That seems like the exact approach to managing Cryptography
library and how we conducts our affairs.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Our community is not large enough for that.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">currently 204 kb for Hashing. I do not know how this plays with your
plugin, but there should just be a SHA512Plugin.
Thanks for digging in and writing your plugin! Can it be changed to just
doing SHA512, easily?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">It is designed to support all SHA2 functions. You may be able to remove
the SHA224/SHA256 stuff, but I see no value in that. This plugin is better
than SHA256Plugin.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I must tell you, that I am totally unfamiliar with the SHA256Plugin,
someone else wrote it over a decade ago! As such, I cannot evaluate the
quality of one over the other, so I will trust your views.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I wrote SHA256Plugin and MD5Plugin. I wrote the image side code for
SHA256, and I added plugin support to MD5 on the image side too.
Other than these hashes, the Cryptography package has SHA1, which is
buggy (try SHA1 hashMessage: ''), MD2 and MD4, which are obsolete, and
nothing else.
So, again, I suggest replacing the HashFunction hierarchy in Cryptography
with Hasher.
Levente
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">K, r
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Levente
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Kindly,
Robert
On 3/9/20 3:11 PM, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi Robert,
During the weekend I wrote a new plugin, SHA2Plugin, which covers all
cases of SHA2, therefore obsoletes SHA256Plugin. The code is available on
SqueakSource:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.squeaksource.com/Cryptography/CryptographyPlugins-ul.18.mcz">http://www.squeaksource.com/Cryptography/CryptographyPlugins-ul.18.mcz</a>
I've updated the HAHasher package with hash variants using the new plugin
(and the old MD5 and SHA256 plugins), and split it up to Core and Tests,
so that the tests with the huge strings can be loaded optionally.
After building a VM with the new plugin, load:
Installer ss
project: 'Registers';
install: 'Registers';
project: 'Hasher';
install: 'HAHasher-Core';
install: 'HAHasher-Tests'.
However, SHA2Plugin is not complete yet. There's an issue with the VM's
code generator affecting 32-bit platforms, and I want to change the
methods swapping endianness before the plugin is added to the VMs.
On Sat, 7 Mar 2020, Robert wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi Levente,
Between this and your HashFunctions and my email in response to Jakob, I
have merged your work into Cryptography, published as:
Name: Cryptography-v5.3-rww.121
Author: rww
Time: 7 March 2020, 12:13:00.184627 pm
UUID: 2b69a713-eac3-4680-9d00-8104eea5a7da
Ancestors: Cryptography-v5.3-rww.120
Ported in the Registers & HAHasher packages and merged into
Cryptography. CryptoGreen!
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I suppose my point didn't get through. In my opinion, the code in
Hasher/HAHasher package should replace Cryptography's HashFunction and
subclasses. Why?
- it's a single package already (except for its dependency on Registers,
but I see no problem with Cryptography having dependencies)
- slimmer: fewer, simpler methods per class
- faster: uses the highly optimized Registers package when plugins are not
available; has plugin support for all implemented hashes (SHA2Plugin);
highly optimized in general
- way more hashes: supports all SHA-2 variants except for SHA-512/t for
arbitrary t other than 224, 256, 384, but that can be implemented as well
if there's need for it.
- has more comments and tests (e.g. check out SHA1 hashMessage: '' in
Cryptography)
- no bad tricks (e.g. check out SHA256 new class, or MD5 new class)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I am now looking to recategorize to fragment Cryptography. Future work
should be released to the whole enchilada Cryptography package and
copied to the correct fragment. For example reorging, rebasing and
renaming HASHA512 to SHA512. As I fragment I will be adding required
packages. It seems like we are unable to specify a version to the
required package. Is this the case?
QUESTION TO CRYPTOGRAPHY TEAM: How do y'all feel about fragmenting
Cryptography? Pros? Cons?
---
Here is a profile of Cryptography and I see many leaves for the various
Registers, so there may be some optimization that could occur.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Registers is a highly optimized package, which should perform better
than ThirtyTwoBitRegister, especially on 64-bit platforms. If you think
you can do even better in pure Smalltalk, I'm all ears.
Levente
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">- 6250 tallies, 6325 msec.
**Leaves**
7.5% {476ms} RGSixtyFourBitRegister64>>loadFrom:
7.5% {472ms} Random>>nextBytes:into:startingAt:
6.8% {427ms} LargePositiveInteger(Integer)>>bitShift:
5.2% {328ms} [] SystemProgressMorph(Morph)>>updateDropShadowCache
4.4% {280ms} RGSixtyFourBitRegister64>>bitXor:
3.5% {220ms} Random>>generateStates
3.0% {192ms} RGThirtyTwoBitRegisterTest64(TestCase)>>timeout:after:
2.9% {181ms} RGSixtyFourBitRegister64>>+=
2.8% {178ms} HASHA256Inlined64>>processBuffer
2.7% {170ms} RGThirtyTwoBitRegister64>>loadFrom:
2.2% {140ms} RGThirtyTwoBitRegister64>>+=
2.1% {134ms} RGSixtyFourBitRegisterTest64(TestCase)>>assert:description:
2.1% {133ms} Point>>=
1.7% {109ms} RGThirtyTwoBitRegister64>>bitXor:
1.7% {107ms} SHA1>>hashStream:
1.5% {96ms} RGSixtyFourBitRegister64>>leftRotateBy:
1.4% {89ms} RGSixtyFourBitRegister64>>load:
1.4% {89ms} RGSixtyFourBitRegister32>>load:
1.4% {89ms} SmallInteger(Number)>>negative
1.4% {88ms} []
RGThirtyTwoBitRegisterTest64(RGRegisterTest)>>testLeftRotateBy
1.2% {77ms} LargePositiveInteger>>*
1.2% {76ms} GrafPort>>fillRoundRect:radius:
1.1% {70ms} GrafPort>>copyBits
1.1% {67ms} DisplayScreen(Form)>>depth
**Memory**
old +0 bytes
young +2,071,872 bytes
used +2,071,872 bytes
free -2,071,872 bytes
**GCs**
full 1 totalling 74 ms (1.17% uptime), avg 74 ms
incr 223 totalling 43 ms (0.7% uptime), avg 0.2 ms
tenures 5,503 (avg 0 GCs/tenure)
root table 0 overflows
K, r
On 3/7/20 9:39 AM, Robert wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi Levente,
Thanks for your comments, I totally understand your views. I have some
response, but the bottom line is that I or others in Cryptography
(looking for new college age recruits...) will harvest some from your
packages. It may only be SHA512 that we port over to round out the hash
function offerings. I appreciate your willingness to allow us to do that.
Your main argument is that Cryptography is too bloated, both with
obsolete algorithms as well as combining the various facets into one
package. The prime function of the Cryptography package is to have one
package with all the Crypto we have, for single click loading. This also
supports the Crypto toolbox/sandbox approach providing an educational
environment to learning Crypto. Crypto is a learning package, as well as
being fully functional.
Cryptography, while larger than most packages, comes in at 300 kb, with
the recent addition of Blowfish. That is loaded into an image file that
is 47 MB! This means that Cryptography is just 0.6% the size of the
image. This does not register to me as too bloated. But I see your
perspective with outdated Crypto being present as well as the
unnecessary add-ons, like X09 and ASN1; ciphers and hashes.
When looking to do end to end encryption, we would load all of
Cryptography (304 kb), ParrotTalk (93 kb), SSL (350 kb), Telnet (101 kb)
& SSH (49 kb), for a total of 900 kb. That is only 1.9 % of the total
image. Note that as I migrate SSL & SSH over onto the ParrotTalk
framework, I expect to see the sizes of those two packages drastically
reduce, through adoption of reuse.
1) having other hashes completes the scope of Crypto even if not utilized.
2) I look forward to diving deeper and understand your point here as
well as see how your instances are created.
3) I would port Registers, as well.
The absence of an ability to easily link dependencies provides a
challenge to breaking Cryptography up. If only Monticello allowed for
dependencies, It is doable to break up Cryptography.
So let us imagine a future where Cryptography stabilizes again. Before
declaring Crypto stable, I would include adding the Signal encryption
needs into the Crypto package. This would include the double ratchet
block cipher mode. As that point of stability is reached, we could
preserve the total package for one click loading and also reduce and
break it up into pieces. How would it sound to you if old obsolete
functions & ciphers are removed, then the ASN1 and X509 is split off. At
this point to your point let us consider splitting off the ciphers and
the hash functions and the randomizers, leaving a Crypto base. Then a
pro user would load Crypto-base, Randomizers, Hash Functions (No MD2...)
and Ciphers (No DES...).
I tried to use your example of use of the Installer to load Cryptography
and it did not work. It could not find the versions.
Installer ss
project: 'Cryptography';
install: 'Cryptography-v5.3'.
If this could be made to work, then small scripts could load this split up Crypto pro solution. Optionally loading the different pieces.
Installer ss
project: 'Cryptography';
install: 'Cryptography-base-v5.3';
install: 'Cryptography-core-v5.3';
install: 'Cryptography-hash-v5.3';
install: 'Cryptography-cipher-v5.3';
install: 'Cryptography-ASN1-v5.3';
install: 'Cryptography-X509-v5.3';
install: 'ParrotTalk';
install: 'SSL';
install: 'Telnet';
install: 'SSH';
install: 'Signal'.
Kindly,
Robert
On 3/7/20 5:20 AM, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi Robert,
On Thu, 5 Mar 2020, Robert wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Oh yes, Levente, I recall speaking with you about it. I would like to
make a proposal. Do you think you could fold all those hash functions,
without the HA, into the Cryptography library? We have a HashFunction
class in there, I do not know how different they may be in their public
interface. I think it would be valuable to combine them. To support TLS
1.3, we would also need elliptical Diffie-Hellmans, I think.
Levente, would you be willing to fold your work into Cryptography?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">The reason why I created a separate package was that I found the
Cryptography package too bloated. Cryptographic hash functions seem to be
more commonly needed than ciphers, CSPRNGS, ASN1, etc.
It is possible to replace HashFunction and subclasses from Cryptography
with those in Hasher, but there would be some consequences:
1) Hasher doesn't have MD2 or MD4, but those are obsolete and broken. I
see little to no value rewriting them to satisfy Hasher's HashFunction
requirements, but it shouldn't be too hard to do that.
2) the way instances are created differ. I didn't want to do it the way
it's done in Cryptography's MD5, SHA1, SHA256, where class side #new may
return an object that is not of that class but a subclass. So, I added
instance creation methods to Hasher's HashFunction which return an
instance optimized for the current platform. So, a few methods need to
be changed in Cryptography to use the optimized hash functions.
3) Cryptography would depend on the Registers package.
Levente
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Kindly,
Robert
On 3/5/20 12:43 PM, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi Robert,
The mail you are looking for is here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/2020-March/032986.html">http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/2020-March/032986.html</a>
Since that email, to make life easier to those who have the Cryptography
package loaded in their images, I've uploaded another variant of
Hasher: HAHasher. It's the same as the Hasher package but all class
names are prefixed with HA.
To load that, evaluate:
Installer ss
project: 'Registers';
install: 'Registers';
project: 'Hasher';
install: 'HAHasher'.
And then you can write
HAHashFunction newSHA512 hashMessage: 'test'.
Levente
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""></pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body></html>