Re: SHA Question

Ichinin wrote:
> Tom wrote:
>
>>PKCS #5 addresses this in a more flexible manner.
>
> Got a pointer to that? (link + section) i'm curious what is says..

That was a pointer to that. Google it and start with table of contents.

>>They're not salt bytes if they're static. That actually doesn't make
>
> it any harder for the attacker.
>
> What to call it then? "pre-/appended junkbytes that go in with the
> passphrase"?

PKCS #5 will also explain "salt".

> The question Neo was asking about was to "encrypt files", so sessionkey
> creation / management is not very useful, thats why i ommited them
> earlier.

Wherever you got that notion, be sure not to go there again.

-- 
--Bryan