Talk:ISO/IEC 9797-1

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force.

Algorithm 5 and CMAC

I don't have a copy of 9797-1:2011, so I can't check, but it seems there is still a discrepancy (after this edit) between the descriptions in ISO/IEC 9797-1#MAC algorithm 5 and CMAC.

ISO/IEC 9797-1#MAC algorithm 5 says:

MAC algorithm 5 comprises two parallel instances of MAC algorithm 1. The first instance is operates on the original input data.

but the diagram on CMAC shows that the last encryption with k (the original key) is of m'_n, not m_n as would be implied by "The first instance [of MAC algorithm 1) operates on [all of] the original input data." (Note that n in CMAC is equivalent to q in ISO/IEC 9797-1, both being the number of blocks in the data/message.)

ISO/IEC 9797-1#MAC algorithm 5 also says:

The second instance [of MAC algorithm 1] operates on two key variants generated from the original key

but the diagram on CMAC shows that the key variants k₁ and k₂ are used to "tweak" m_n; there's nothing in the CMAC diagram the remotely looks like MAC algorithm 1 operating on (or with) the two key variants.

Finally ISO/IEC 9797-1#MAC algorithm 5 says:

The final MAC is computed by the bitwise exclusive-or of the MACs generated by each instance of algorithm 1

but the diagram on CMAC shows that the MAC is the result of E_k(...), not the result of an XOR.

Is the algorithm described by the CMAC article actually the same as ISO/IEC 9797-1 MAC algorithm 5? (The CMAC article does not mention 9797-1.) If so, ISO/IEC 9797-1#MAC algorithm 5 needs re-writing so that it is accurate. If not, we should not link to it. Possibly there are multiple algorithms referred to as "CMAC", in which case a disambiguation page might be required. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]