RFC 9858
Additional Parameter Sets for HSS/LMS Hash-Based Signatures
Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) ✨
Author(s): S. Fluhrer (Cisco Systems) 💖 and Q. Dang (NIST) 🌸 Category: Informational 🦋 ISSN: 2070-1721 Date: October 2025 📅
This one is an IRTF doc, so it's a research output from the Crypto Forum Research Group, not an IETF standard. It doesn't obsolete or update any earlier RFCs. It does extend [RFC8554] (the HSS/LMS spec) 🔥
Abstract 💅
okay so this doc adds new HSS/LMS parameter sets that use different hash functions. The big win is that the signatures come out way smaller than the RFC 8554 ones, and the authors think they still have sufficient security 🫶
This doc is an IRTF product, which means it shares research results that might not be ready for deployment. It represents the CFRG consensus, and anything approved by the IRSG isn't a candidate for any level of Internet Standard. See Section 2 of RFC 7841 for that. ✨
Status of This Memo 🎀
This is not an Internet Standards Track spec. It's published just for info 🌈
Same vibe as the Abstract: it's an IRTF product, research results might not be deployable, and it's the CFRG consensus. Approved IRSG docs aren't Internet Standard candidates (see Section 2 of RFC 7841) 💜
You can find the current status, errata, and feedback info at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9858 🦋
Copyright Notice 🌸
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. 💖
This doc is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) as they stood on the publication date. Read those carefully, bestie, because they spell out your rights 📜
Table of Contents 🧚
1. Introduction
2. Additional Hash Function Definitions
2.1. 192-Bit Hash Function Based on SHA-256
2.2. 256-Bit Hash Function Based on SHAKE256
2.3. 192-Bit Hash Function Based on SHAKE256
3. Additional LM-OTS Parameter Sets
4. Additional LMS Parameter Sets
5. Usage for These Additional Hash Functions within HSS
6. Parameter Set Selection
7. Comparisons of 192-Bit and 256-Bit Parameter Sets
8. Security Considerations
8.1. Note on the Version of SHAKE
9. IANA Considerations
10. References
10.1. Normative References
10.2. Informative References
Appendix A. Test Cases
A.1. Test Case 1 - SHA-256/192
A.2. Test Vector for SHAKE256/192
A.3. Test Vector for SHA-256/256
A.4. Test Vector for SHA-256/192, W=4
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses1. Introduction 🍓
Stateful hash-based signatures are lowkey amazing. Their private and public keys are small, they're fast to compute, and they're believed to have excellent security. The catch? The signatures they make can be pretty chonky, like 1-4 kilobytes 🙈
So this doc defines a bunch of parameter sets for the HSS/LMS stateful hash-based signature method [RFC8554]. They either shrink the signature a lot, or they use a hash function that isn't SHA-256, which adds cryptodiversity 🔥
This doc represents the CFRG consensus in the IRTF. It's not an IETF product and it's not a standard 💅
Quick terminology tea ☕: a Leighton-Micali Signature (LMS) is a stateful hash-based signature scheme built on a single-level Merkle tree. The Hierarchical Signature System (HSS) binds several LMS signatures together hierarchically so you get more signatures available. Technically, every signature in this doc is an HSS signature, even when it's just one LMS signature. People usually just say "LMS signatures" though, so this doc uses "HSS/LMS" to cover both the pedantic and the casual meanings ✨
This doc is meant to be compatible with the NIST document [NIST_SP_800-208]. 🫶
2. Additional Hash Function Definitions 🌈
This section defines three hash functions for use with the parameter sets in Sections 3 and 4. They replace SHA-256 wherever SHA-256 shows up in the original parameter sets from [RFC8554]. Whichever parameter set you pick decides which hash function gets used 💖
2.1. 192-Bit Hash Function Based on SHA-256 🦋
This doc defines a SHA-2-based hash function with a 192-bit output. We call it SHA-256/192, and it's a truncated version of SHA-256 [FIPS180]. So you run SHA-256 on a message and then drop the final 64 bits of the output. This truncation procedure is described in Section 7 of [FIPS180]. 🌸
Here's the test vector:
SHA-256("abc") = ba7816bf 8f01cfea 414140de 5dae2223
b00361a3 96177a9c b410ff61 f20015ad
SHA-256/192("abc") = ba7816bf 8f01cfea 414140de 5dae2223
b00361a3 96177a9cIt uses the same initial hash value (initialization vector) as untruncated SHA-256 instead of defining a new one, so a standard SHA-256 implementation works with no changes 🧚
Is it a concern that someone can get partial knowledge of a message's SHA-256 hash by looking at its SHA-256/192 hash? Nope, not for this application 🙅♀️ Every message that gets hashed is randomized. Any message being signed includes the C randomizer (a value the signer picks, which gets included in the hash), and it changes per message. So signing the same message with SHA-256 and with SHA-256/192 won't hash the same value, which means the latter hash isn't a prefix of the former one ✨
Also, every hash includes the I identifier, which is part of the signing process in [RFC8554]. The I identifier is picked randomly for each private key, so two keys will almost certainly have different I values. That means the intermediate hashes from signing with two HSS private keys (one using a SHA-256 parameter set, one using a SHA-256/192 parameter set) will also be different with high probability 💅
2.2. 256-Bit Hash Function Based on SHAKE256 💜
This doc defines a SHAKE-based hash function with a 256-bit output. We call it SHAKE256/256, and it's the first 256 bits of the SHAKE256 extendable-output function (XOF). So you run a SHAKE-256 operation on a message and use the first 256 bits of output. Check [FIPS202] for more details 🔥
2.3. 192-Bit Hash Function Based on SHAKE256 🌈
This doc also defines a SHAKE-based hash function, this time with a 192-bit output. We call it SHAKE256/192, and it's the first 192 bits of the SHAKE256 XOF. So you run a SHAKE-256 operation on a message and use the first 192 bits of output. More detail is in [FIPS202] 🧚
3. Additional LM-OTS Parameter Sets 💖
Here's the table for the Leighton-Micali One-Time Signature (LM-OTS) parameters that use the hashes from Section 2 🦋
+=====================+==============+==+=+=====+====+============+
| Parameter Set Name | H | n|w| p | ls | id |
+=====================+==============+==+=+=====+====+============+
| LMOTS_SHA256_N24_W1 | SHA-256/192 |24|1| 200 | 8 | 0x00000005 |
+---------------------+--------------+--+-+-----+----+------------+
| LMOTS_SHA256_N24_W2 | SHA-256/192 |24|2| 101 | 6 | 0x00000006 |
+---------------------+--------------+--+-+-----+----+------------+
| LMOTS_SHA256_N24_W4 | SHA-256/192 |24|4| 51 | 4 | 0x00000007 |
+---------------------+--------------+--+-+-----+----+------------+
| LMOTS_SHA256_N24_W8 | SHA-256/192 |24|8| 26 | 0 | 0x00000008 |
+---------------------+--------------+--+-+-----+----+------------+
| LMOTS_SHAKE_N32_W1 | SHAKE256/256 |32|1| 265 | 7 | 0x00000009 |
+---------------------+--------------+--+-+-----+----+------------+
| LMOTS_SHAKE_N32_W2 | SHAKE256/256 |32|2| 133 | 6 | 0x0000000A |
+---------------------+--------------+--+-+-----+----+------------+
| LMOTS_SHAKE_N32_W4 | SHAKE256/256 |32|4| 67 | 4 | 0x0000000B |
+---------------------+--------------+--+-+-----+----+------------+
| LMOTS_SHAKE_N32_W8 | SHAKE256/256 |32|8| 34 | 0 | 0x0000000C |
+---------------------+--------------+--+-+-----+----+------------+
| LMOTS_SHAKE_N24_W1 | SHAKE256/192 |24|1| 200 | 8 | 0x0000000D |
+---------------------+--------------+--+-+-----+----+------------+
| LMOTS_SHAKE_N24_W2 | SHAKE256/192 |24|2| 101 | 6 | 0x0000000E |
+---------------------+--------------+--+-+-----+----+------------+
| LMOTS_SHAKE_N24_W4 | SHAKE256/192 |24|4| 51 | 4 | 0x0000000F |
+---------------------+--------------+--+-+-----+----+------------+
| LMOTS_SHAKE_N24_W8 | SHAKE256/192 |24|8| 26 | 0 | 0x00000010 |
+---------------------+--------------+--+-+-----+----+------------+Table 1 🌸
- Parameter Set Name: the human-readable name of the parameter set.
- H: the second-preimage-resistant cryptographic hash function used in this parameter set.
- n: the number of bytes in the hash function's output.
- w: the width (in bits) of the Winternitz coefficients, meaning how many bits from the hash or checksum go into a single Winternitz chain. It's a member of the set { 1, 2, 4, 8 }.
- p: the number of n-byte string elements that make up the LM-OTS signature.
- ls: the number of left-shift bits used in the checksum function Cksm (used by algorithm 2 of [RFC8554]).
- id: the IANA-defined identifier for this specific parameter set. It shows up in both public keys and signatures.
These values are additions to the entries in Table 1 of [RFC8554] ✨
The SHA256_N24, SHAKE_N32, and SHAKE_N24 bits in the parameter set names stand for the SHA-256/192, SHAKE256/256, and SHAKE256/192 hash functions from Section 2 💅
Remember: the C message randomizer (which lives in the signature) is the same size as the hash output, n bytes. So for the parameter sets using SHA-256/192 or SHAKE256/192, it shrinks from 32 bytes down to 24 bytes 🫶
Part 1 of 6 done! 🌈 More parts are coming, so stay tuned, bestie 💜
4. Additional LMS Parameter Sets ✨
okay so this is where we get our LMS parameter sets, bestie 🫶 Leighton-Micali Signature (LMS) parameters are the many-time signature setups, and this table lists a bunch of new ones that use the SHA-256/192, SHAKE256/256, and SHAKE256/192 hash functions. It's giving organized 🎀
+====================+==============+====+====+============+
| Parameter Set Name | H | m | h | id |
+====================+==============+====+====+============+
| LMS_SHA256_M24_H5 | SHA-256/192 | 24 | 5 | 0x0000000A |
+--------------------+--------------+----+----+------------+
| LMS_SHA256_M24_H10 | SHA-256/192 | 24 | 10 | 0x0000000B |
+--------------------+--------------+----+----+------------+
| LMS_SHA256_M24_H15 | SHA-256/192 | 24 | 15 | 0x0000000C |
+--------------------+--------------+----+----+------------+
| LMS_SHA256_M24_H20 | SHA-256/192 | 24 | 20 | 0x0000000D |
+--------------------+--------------+----+----+------------+
| LMS_SHA256_M24_H25 | SHA-256/192 | 24 | 25 | 0x0000000E |
+--------------------+--------------+----+----+------------+
| LMS_SHAKE_M32_H5 | SHAKE256/256 | 32 | 5 | 0x0000000F |
+--------------------+--------------+----+----+------------+
| LMS_SHAKE_M32_H10 | SHAKE256/256 | 32 | 10 | 0x00000010 |
+--------------------+--------------+----+----+------------+
| LMS_SHAKE_M32_H15 | SHAKE256/256 | 32 | 15 | 0x00000011 |
+--------------------+--------------+----+----+------------+
| LMS_SHAKE_M32_H20 | SHAKE256/256 | 32 | 20 | 0x00000012 |
+--------------------+--------------+----+----+------------+
| LMS_SHAKE_M32_H25 | SHAKE256/256 | 32 | 25 | 0x00000013 |
+--------------------+--------------+----+----+------------+
| LMS_SHAKE_M24_H5 | SHAKE256/192 | 24 | 5 | 0x00000014 |
+--------------------+--------------+----+----+------------+
| LMS_SHAKE_M24_H10 | SHAKE256/192 | 24 | 10 | 0x00000015 |
+--------------------+--------------+----+----+------------+
| LMS_SHAKE_M24_H15 | SHAKE256/192 | 24 | 15 | 0x00000016 |
+--------------------+--------------+----+----+------------+
| LMS_SHAKE_M24_H20 | SHAKE256/192 | 24 | 20 | 0x00000017 |
+--------------------+--------------+----+----+------------+
| LMS_SHAKE_M24_H25 | SHAKE256/192 | 24 | 25 | 0x00000018 |
+--------------------+--------------+----+----+------------+Table 2 💜 (this is the same Table 2 we're talking about, just with the new rows)
Parameter Set Name: the human-readable name of the parameter set. 🌸
H: the second-preimage-resistant cryptographic hash function used within this parameter set. 🦋
m: the size in bytes of the hash function output. 🍓
h: the height of the Merkle tree. 🌈
id: the IANA-defined identifier used to denote this specific parameter set, which appears in both public keys and signatures. 🧚
These values are additions to the entries in Table 2 of [RFC8554]. So these are extra rows on top of the ones already in RFC 8554, no cap 💅
The SHA256_M24, SHAKE_M32, and SHAKE_M24 in the parameter set names denote the SHA-256/192, SHAKE256/256, and SHAKE256/192 hash functions defined in Section 2. Basically the name tags point back to the hash functions we defined earlier in Section 2 ✨
5. Usage for These Additional Hash Functions within HSS 🎀
okay so how do you actually use these in HSS? 🫶 You grab the right LM-OTS id from Table 1 and the right LMS id from Table 2, then use that extra hash function whenever you're computing hashes for key generation, signature generation, and signature verification. Simple as that, periodt 💖
Note that the size of the I Merkle tree identifier remains 16 bytes, independent of what hash function is used. So no matter which hash you pick, the I value stays 16 bytes. It's literally the same size every time 🌸
6. Parameter Set Selection 🦋
This document, along with [RFC8554], defines four hash functions for use within HSS/LMS: SHA-256, SHA-256/192, SHAKE256/256, and SHAKE256/192. That's four total, and yes, the two 192-bit ones are the new girlies 💅
The main reason you'd pick a hash with a 192-bit output (either SHA-256/192 or SHAKE256/192) is to reduce the signature size. The catch? It comes at the cost of reducing the security margin 💀 Still, the security should be sufficient for most uses, so don't panic 🫶
In contrast, there is no security or signature size difference between the SHA-256-based parameter sets (SHA-256 or SHA-256/192) versus the SHAKE-based parameter sets (SHAKE256/256 or SHAKE256/192). So the real question is practical stuff, like whether your implementation already has a SHA-256 (or SHAKE) implementation, or whether one of them just gives better hashing performance on your platform ⭐
7. Comparisons of 192-Bit and 256-Bit Parameter Sets 👑
Switching to a 192-bit hash affects the signature size, the computation time, and the security strength. It significantly reduces the signature size and somewhat reduces the computation time, at the cost of security strength. See Section 8 for a discussion of the security strength. Okay, the security part is serious, so we'll get there in Section 8 🙈
The impact on signature size and computation time is based on two effects:
- Each hash that appears in the signature is shorter.
- We need fewer Winternitz chains (because LM-OTS signs a shorter value).
For signature length, both effects are relevant. The first is relevant because the signature consists of a series of hashes and each hash is shorter. The second is relevant because when we need fewer Winternitz chains, we need fewer hashes in each LM-OTS signature. Two effects, both matter for size 🎀
For computation time (for both signature generation and verification), effect 1 is irrelevant (we still need to perform essentially the same hash computation), but effect 2 still applies. For example, with W=8, SHA-256 requires 34 Winternitz chains per LM-OTS signature, but SHA-256/192 requires only 26. Since the vast majority of time (for both signature generation and verification) is spent computing these Winternitz chains, this reduction in the number of chains gives us some performance improvement. So the chain count is the thing that actually speeds things up ✨
The table below gives the space used by both the 256-bit and 192-bit parameter sets for a range of commonly used Winternitz parameters and tree heights:
+=========+============+==============+==============+
| ParmSet | Winternitz | 256-bit hash | 192-bit hash |
+=========+============+==============+==============+
| 15 | 4 | 2672 | 1624 |
+---------+------------+--------------+--------------+
| 15 | 8 | 1616 | 1024 |
+---------+------------+--------------+--------------+
| 20 | 4 | 2832 | 1744 |
+---------+------------+--------------+--------------+
| 20 | 8 | 1776 | 1144 |
+---------+------------+--------------+--------------+
| 15/10 | 4 | 5236 | 3172 |
+---------+------------+--------------+--------------+
| 15/10 | 8 | 3124 | 1972 |
+---------+------------+--------------+--------------+
| 15/15 | 4 | 5396 | 3292 |
+---------+------------+--------------+--------------+
| 15/15 | 8 | 3284 | 2092 |
+---------+------------+--------------+--------------+
| 20/10 | 4 | 5396 | 3292 |
+---------+------------+--------------+--------------+
| 20/10 | 8 | 3284 | 2092 |
+---------+------------+--------------+--------------+
| 20/15 | 4 | 5556 | 3412 |
+---------+------------+--------------+--------------+
| 20/15 | 8 | 3444 | 2212 |
+---------+------------+--------------+--------------+Table 3 🧚
ParmSet: the height of the Merkle tree(s), which is the parameter "h" from Table 2. Parameter sets listed as a single integer have L=1 and consist of a single Merkle tree of that height; parameter sets with L=2 are listed as x/y, with x being the height of the top-level Merkle tree and y being the bottom level. 🌈
Winternitz: the Winternitz parameter used, which is the parameter "w" from Table 1. For the tests that use multiple trees, this applies to all of them. 🍓
256-bit hash: the size in bytes of a signature, assuming that a 256-bit hash is used in the signature (either SHA-256 or SHAKE256/256). 🦋
192-bit hash: the size in bytes of a signature, assuming that a 192-bit hash is used in the signature (either SHA-256/192 or SHAKE256/192). 💖
An examination of the signature sizes shows that the 192-bit parameters consistently give a 35-40% reduction in the size of the signature in comparison with the 256-bit parameters. That's a huge glow-up for your signature size 🌸
For SHA-256/192, there is a smaller (circa 20%) reduction in the amount of computation required for a signature operation with a 192-bit hash, because fewer Winternitz chains would need to be computed. The SHAKE256/192 signatures may have either a faster or slower computation, depending on the implementation speed of SHAKE versus SHA-256 hashes. So SHAKE256/192 is kind of a mixed bag on speed, iykyk 🙈
The SHAKE256/256-based parameter sets give no space advantage (or disadvantage) over the existing SHA-256-based parameter sets; any performance delta would depend solely on the implementation and whether they can generate SHAKE hashes faster than SHA-256 ones. So for SHAKE256/256, the only question is speed, and that's all on your implementation 💅
8. Security Considerations 🔐
Okay bestie, this is the serious section, so buckle up 😭 The strength of a signature that uses the SHA-256/192, SHAKE256/256, and SHAKE256/192 hash functions is based on how hard it is to find preimages or second preimages for those hash functions. As shown in [Katz16], if we assume the hash function can be modeled as a random oracle, then the security of the system is at least 8N-1 bits (where N is the size of the hash output in bytes). That gives us a security level of 255 bits for SHAKE256/256 and 191 bits for SHA-256/192 and SHAKE256/192). So SHA-256/192 and SHAKE256/192 can be expected to be about as strong as AES-192 🫶, while SHAKE256/256 is as strong as AES-256 💪. If AES-192 and AES-256 are quantum-resistant, then we expect SHA-256/192, SHAKE256/192, and SHAKE256/256 to be quantum-resistant too ✨.
Looking at it another way, SHAKE256/256 is basically the same as the existing SHA-256-based signatures. The difficulty of finding preimages and second preimages is essentially the same, so they have (barring unexpected cryptographic advances) essentially the same level of security 💅.
The case of SHA-256/192 and SHAKE256/192 needs a closer look 👀.
For a classical (non-quantum) computer, there is no known attack better than computing hashes of a large number of distinct preimages. So a successful attack has a high probability of needing nearly 2^192 hash computations (for either SHA-256/192 or SHAKE256/192). Those can be treated as the expected work effort, and they would seem completely infeasible in practice 🙈.
In theory, an attacker with a quantum computer could use Grover's algorithm [Grover96] to bring the expected complexity down to circa 2^96 hash computations (for N=24). BUT 🛑 hold on, not so fast: running Grover's algorithm with this many hash computations means performing circa 2^96 hash computations in succession, which takes more time than is likely to be acceptable to any attacker 😭. To speed this up, the attacker would need to run a bunch of instances of Grover's algorithm in parallel. That necessarily increases the total work effort, and to an extent that makes it likely infeasible 🚫. Here's why: if we limit the time taken by Grover's algorithm to 2^t steps (for t <= 96), then attacking a 192-bit hash preimage problem requires a total of 2^(192-t) hash computations, instead of the 2^(192/2) hash computations it would need if we didn't limit the time. In other words, the hash preimage can be found in 2^t steps by using 2^(192-2t) quantum computers (for t <= 96), with one of those quantum computers finding the preimage 🧚. For example, if the adversary is willing to wait 2^64 times the time taken by one hash computation (which is over 50 years if a quantum computer can compute a hash in 0.1 nanoseconds), this implies a total of 2^(192-64) = 2^128 hash computations will need to be performed, on 2^64 (18 quintillion) separate quantum computers, each of which computes 2^64 hash evaluations 🤯.
So we expect that HSS/LMS based on these hash functions is secure against both classical and quantum computers 🌈. In both cases, the expected work effort is less (for the N=24 case) than against either SHA-256 or SHAKE256/256, but it still holds up.
SHA-256 is subject to a length extension attack. In this attack, if the attacker is given the hash value of an unknown message (and the message length), then the attacker can compute the hash of the message with certain strings appended, even though the attacker doesn't know the contents of the initial part of the modified message. This seems irrelevant to HSS for two reasons:
- For the initial message hash, the hash is entirely over public data. So this attack is irrelevant, because the attacker could compute the hash of the message with appended data anyway.
- The rest of the hashes within HSS are fixed length. So there is no opportunity to perform length extension attacks.
On top of that, to perform a length extension attack on SHA-256/192, the attacker has to guess the 64 omitted bits (because the attack requires all 256 bits of the hash value). So that's even less of a concern than it is for standard SHA-256 🙌.
⚠️ There is one corner case where the security strength is reduced: if we need to assume that the signer will never deliberately generate a signature that is valid for two different messages. HSS uses randomized hashing when signing a message. When a message is presented to be signed, the signer generates a random value C and includes it in what is prepended to the message. Because the attacker cannot predict this value, it is infeasible for anyone other than the signer to find a generic collision. Practically speaking, a signature that is valid for two colliding messages is feasible only if the signer signed both messages. For this to happen, a signer (that is, the one with the private key who picks the random C value) would have to break the collision resistance of the hash function to generate those two colliding messages. Note that this does not apply to someone who submits the messages for signing; only the signer could do this. The result would be a signature that is valid for two different selected messages. This is a nonstandard assumption for signature schemes and is usually not a concern, as we assume the signer is trusted to generate signatures for any message. However, if the application needs to assume that it is infeasible for the signer to generate such a signature, then the security strength assumptions are reduced (to 128 bits for SHAKE256/256 and 96 bits for SHA-256/192 and SHAKE256/192) 😬.
Some cryptographers have raised the possibility of a multi-target attack (where the attacker has signatures from a large number of public keys and succeeds if they can forge a signature against any one of those public keys). No such attack method has been proposed, but the possibility cannot be excluded. If there are a large number of public keys, it might be prudent to consider the possibility of some security loss with N=24. If there are 2^K public keys, this security loss cannot be more than K bits of security 🧐.
8.1. Note on the Version of SHAKE
[FIPS202] defines both SHAKE128 and SHAKE256. This specification selects SHAKE256, even though it is less efficient for large messages. The reason is that SHAKE128 has a low upper bound on the difficulty of finding preimages (due to the invertibility of its internal permutation), which would limit the strength of HSS/LMS (whose strength is based on the difficulty of finding preimages). So we specify SHAKE256, which has considerably stronger preimage resistance 🛡️✨.
9. IANA Considerations 🗂️
IANA has assigned the code points for the parameter sets in Section 3 in the "LM-OTS Signatures" registry, and the parameter sets in Section 4 in the "Leighton-Micali Signatures (LMS)" registry. These assignments are included in [NIST_SP_800-208], but the IANA registrations only reference this document 💌.
10. References 📚
10.1. Normative References
- [FIPS180] NIST, "Secure Hash Standard", NIST FIPS 180-4, DOI 10.6028/NIST.FIPS.180-4, August 2015,
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/FIPS/NIST.FIPS.180-4.pdf. - [FIPS202] NIST, "SHA-3 Standard: Permutation-Based Hash and Extendable-Output Functions", NIST FIPS 202, DOI 10.6028/NIST.FIPS.202, August 2015,
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/FIPS/NIST.FIPS.202.pdf. - [RFC8554] McGrew, D., Curcio, M., and S. Fluhrer, "Leighton-Micali Hash-Based Signatures", RFC 8554, DOI 10.17487/RFC8554, April 2019,
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8554.
10.2. Informative References
- [Grover96] Grover, L., "A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search", Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC '96), pp. 212-219, DOI 10.1145/237814.237866, July 1996,
https://doi.org/10.1145/237814.237866. - [Katz16] Katz, J., "Analysis of a Proposed Hash-Based Signature Standard", Security Standardisation Research (SSR 2016), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10074, pp. 261-273, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-49100-4_12, 2016,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49100-4_12. - [NIST_SP_800-208] Cooper, D., Apon, D., Dang, Q., Davidson, M., Dworkin, M., and C. Miller, "Recommendation for Stateful Hash-Based Signature Schemes", National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST SP 800-208, DOI 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-208, October 2020,
https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-208.
Appendix A. Test Cases 🧪
This appendix provides four test cases that you can use to verify or debug an implementation 🔍. The data is formatted with the name of each element on the left and its value on the right, in hexadecimal. The concatenation of all the values within a public key or signature produces that public key or signature, and values that don't fit on a single line are listed across successive lines 🍓.
A.1. Test Case 1 - SHA-256/192 🎀
okay bestie, this is the first test case and it's SO pretty 💖 we start with the private key seed and identifier, then the public key, then the message and the full signature. no cap, it's giving very organized ✨
--------------------------------------------
(note: procedure in Appendix A of [RFC8554] is used)
SEED 000102030405060708090a0b0c0d0e0f
1011121314151617
I 202122232425262728292a2b2c2d2e2f
--------------------------------------------Figure 1: Private Key for SHA-256/192
--------------------------------------------
HSS public key
levels 00000001
--------------------------------------------
LMS type 0000000a # LMS_SHA256_M24_H5
LM-OTS type 00000008 # LMOTS_SHA256_N24_W8
I 202122232425262728292a2b2c2d2e2f
K 2c571450aed99cfb4f4ac285da148827
96618314508b12d2
--------------------------------------------Figure 2: Public Key for SHA-256/192
--------------------------------------------
Message 54657374206d65737361676520666f72 |Test message for|
205348413235362d3139320a | SHA-256/192.|
--------------------------------------------Figure 3: Message for SHA-256/192
--------------------------------------------
HSS signature
Nspk 00000000
sig[0]:
--------------------------------------------
LMS signature
q 00000005
--------------------------------------------
LM-OTS signature
LM-OTS type 00000008 # LMOTS_SHA256_N24_W8
C 0b5040a18c1b5cabcbc85b047402ec62
94a30dd8da8fc3da
y[0] e13b9f0875f09361dc77fcc4481ea463
c073716249719193
y[1] 614b835b4694c059f12d3aedd34f3db9
3f3580fb88743b8b
y[2] 3d0648c0537b7a50e433d7ea9d6672ff
fc5f42770feab4f9
y[3] 8eb3f3b23fd2061e4d0b38f832860ae7
6673ad1a1a52a900
y[4] 5dcf1bfb56fe16ff723627612f9a48f7
90f3c47a67f870b8
y[5] 1e919d99919c8db48168838cece0abfb
683da48b9209868b
y[6] e8ec10c63d8bf80d36498dfc205dc45d
0dd870572d6d8f1d
y[7] 90177cf5137b8bbf7bcb67a46f86f26c
fa5a44cbcaa4e18d
y[8] a099a98b0b3f96d5ac8ac375d8da2a7c
248004ba11d7ac77
y[9] 5b9218359cddab4cf8ccc6d54cb7e1b3
5a36ddc9265c0870
y[10] 63d2fc6742a7177876476a324b03295b
fed99f2eaf1f3897
y[11] 0583c1b2b616aad0f31cd7a4b1bb0a51
e477e94a01bbb4d6
y[12] f8866e2528a159df3d6ce244d2b6518d
1f0212285a3c2d4a
y[13] 927054a1e1620b5b02aab0c8c10ed48a
e518ea73cba81fcf
y[14] ff88bff461dac51e7ab4ca75f47a6259
d24820b9995792d1
y[15] 39f61ae2a8186ae4e3c9bfe0af2cc717
f424f41aa67f03fa
y[16] edb0665115f2067a46843a4cbbd297d5
e83bc1aafc18d1d0
y[17] 3b3d894e8595a6526073f02ab0f08b99
fd9eb208b59ff631
y[18] 7e5545e6f9ad5f9c183abd043d5acd6e
b2dd4da3f02dbc31
y[19] 67b468720a4b8b92ddfe7960998bb7a0
ecf2a26a37598299
y[20] 413f7b2aecd39a30cec527b4d9710c44
73639022451f50d0
y[21] 1c0457125da0fa4429c07dad859c846c
bbd93ab5b91b01bc
y[22] 770b089cfede6f651e86dd7c15989c8b
5321dea9ca608c71
y[23] fd862323072b827cee7a7e28e4e2b999
647233c3456944bb
y[24] 7aef9187c96b3f5b79fb98bc76c3574d
d06f0e95685e5b3a
y[25] ef3a54c4155fe3ad817749629c30adbe
897c4f4454c86c49
--------------------------------------------
LMS type 0000000a # LMS_SHA256_M24_H5
path[0] e9ca10eaa811b22ae07fb195e3590a33
4ea64209942fbae3
path[1] 38d19f152182c807d3c40b189d3fcbea
942f44682439b191
path[2] 332d33ae0b761a2a8f984b56b2ac2fd4
ab08223a69ed1f77
path[3] 19c7aa7e9eee96504b0e60c6bb5c942d
695f0493eb25f80a
path[4] 5871cffd131d0e04ffe5065bc7875e82
d34b40b69dd9f3c1Figure 4: Signature for SHA-256/192
A.2. Test Vector for SHAKE256/192 🦋
and now the SHAKE256/192 one, which is giving the same energy but with a different hash under the hood 💅 same layout, new numbers, obsessed 😭
--------------------------------------------
(note: procedure in Appendix A of [RFC8554] is used)
SEED 303132333435363738393a3b3c3d3e3f
4041424344454647
I 505152535455565758595a5b5c5d5e5f
--------------------------------------------Figure 5: Private Key for SHAKE256/192
---------------------------------------------
HSS public key
levels 00000001
--------------------------------------------
LMS type 00000014 # LMS_SHAKE_N24_H5
LM-OTS type 00000010 # LMOTS_SHAKE_N24_W8
I 505152535455565758595a5b5c5d5e5f
K db54a4509901051c01e26d9990e55034
7986da87924ff0b1
--------------------------------------------Figure 6: Public Key for SHAKE256/192
--------------------------------------------
Message 54657374206d65737361676520666f72 |Test message for|
205348414b453235362d3139320a | SHAKE256/192.|
--------------------------------------------Figure 7: Message for SHAKE256/192
--------------------------------------------
HSS signature
Nspk 00000000
sig[0]:
--------------------------------------------
LMS signature
q 00000006
--------------------------------------------
LM-OTS signature
LM-OTS type 00000010 # LMOTS_SHAKE_N24_W8
C 84219da9ce9fffb16edb94527c6d1056
5587db28062deac4
y[0] 208e62fc4fbe9d85deb3c6bd2c01640a
ccb387d8a6093d68
y[1] 511234a6a1a50108091c034cb1777e02
b5df466149a66969
y[2] a498e4200c0a0c1bf5d100cdb97d2dd4
0efd3cada278acc5
y[3] a570071a043956112c6deebd1eb3a7b5
6f5f6791515a7b5f
y[4] fddb0ec2d9094bfbc889ea15c3c7b9be
a953efb75ed648f5
y[5] 35b9acab66a2e9631e426e4e99b733ca
a6c55963929b77fe
y[6] c54a7e703d8162e736875cb6a455d4a9
015c7a6d8fd5fe75
y[7] e402b47036dc3770f4a1dd0a559cb478
c7fb1726005321be
y[8] 9d1ac2de94d731ee4ca79cff454c811f
46d11980909f047b
y[9] 2005e84b6e15378446b1ca691efe491e
a98acc9d3c0f785c
y[10] aba5e2eb3c306811c240ba2280292382
7d582639304a1e97
y[11] 83ba5bc9d69d999a7db8f749770c3c04
a152856dc726d806
y[12] 7921465b61b3f847b13b2635a45379e5
adc6ff58a99b00e6
y[13] 0ac767f7f30175f9f7a140257e218be3
07954b1250c9b419
y[14] 02c4fa7c90d8a592945c66e86a76defc
b84500b55598a199
y[15] 0faaa10077c74c94895731585c8f900d
e1a1c675bd8b0c18
y[16] 0ebe2b5eb3ef8019ece3e1ea7223eb79
06a2042b6262b4aa
y[17] 25c4b8a05f205c8befeef11ceff12825
08d71bc2a8cfa0a9
y[18] 9f73f3e3a74bb4b3c0d8ca2abd0e1c2c
17dafe18b4ee2298
y[19] e87bcfb1305b3c069e6d385569a4067e
d547486dd1a50d6f
y[20] 4a58aab96e2fa883a9a39e1bd45541ee
e94efc32faa9a94b
y[21] e66dc8538b2dab05aee5efa6b3b2efb3
fd020fe789477a93
y[22] afff9a3e636dbba864a5bffa3e28d13d
49bb597d94865bde
y[23] 88c4627f206ab2b465084d6b780666e9
52f8710efd748bd0
y[24] f1ae8f1035087f5028f14affcc5fffe3
32121ae4f87ac5f1
y[25] eac9062608c7d87708f1723f38b23237
a4edf4b49a5cd3d7
--------------------------------------------
LMS type 00000014 # LMS_SHAKE_N24_H5
path[0] dd4bdc8f928fb526f6fb7cdb944a7eba
a7fb05d995b5721a
path[1] 27096a5007d82f79d063acd434a04e97
f61552f7f81a9317
path[2] b4ec7c87a5ed10c881928fc6ebce6dfc
e9daae9cc9dba690
path[3] 7ca9a9dd5f9f573704d5e6cf22a43b04
e64c1ffc7e1c442e
path[4] cb495ba265f465c56291a902e62a461f
6dfda232457fad14Figure 8: Signature for SHAKE256/192
A.3. Test Vector for SHA-256/256 ✨
Okay bestie, this is the big one 💅 Same appendix energy, but the figures below carry the full SHAKE256/256 setup, from the private key through the signature 🦋
--------------------------------------------
(note: procedure in Appendix A of [RFC8554] is used)
SEED 606162636465666768696a6b6c6d6e6f
707172737475767778797a7b7c7d7e7f
I 808182838485868788898a8b8c8d8e8f
--------------------------------------------Figure 9: Private Key for SHAKE256/256 🌸
--------------------------------------------
HSS public key
levels 00000001
--------------------------------------------
LMS type 0000000f # LMS_SHAKE_N32_H5
LM-OTS type 0000000c # LMOTS_SHAKE_N32_W8
I 808182838485868788898a8b8c8d8e8f
K 9bb7faee411cae806c16a466c3191a8b
65d0ac31932bbf0c2d07c7a4a36379fe
--------------------------------------------Figure 10: Public Key for SHAKE256/256 💜
--------------------------------------------
Message 54657374206d657361676520666f7220 |Test message for|
5348414b453235362d3235360a |SHAKE256/256.|
--------------------------------------------Figure 11: Message for SHAKE256/256 🍓
--------------------------------------------
HSS signature
Nspk 00000000
sig[0]:
--------------------------------------------
LMS signature
q 00000007
--------------------------------------------
LM-OTS signature
LM-OTS type 0000000c # LMOTS_SHAKE_N32_W8
C b82709f0f00e83759190996233d1ee4f
4ec50534473c02ffa145e8ca2874e32b
y[0] 16b228118c62b96c9c77678b33183730
debaade8fe607f05c6697bc971519a34
y[1] 1d69c00129680b67e75b3bd7d8aa5c8b
71f02669d177a2a0eea896dcd1660f16
y[2] 864b302ff321f9c4b8354408d0676050
4f768ebd4e545a9b0ac058c575078e6c
y[3] 1403160fb45450d61a9c8c81f6bd69bd
fa26a16e12a265baf79e9e233eb71af6
y[4] 34ecc66dc88e10c6e0142942d4843f70
a0242727bc5a2aabf7b0ec12a99090d8
y[5] caeef21303f8ac58b9f200371dc9e41a
b956e1a3efed9d4bbb38975b46c28d5f
y[6] 5b3ed19d847bd0a737177263cbc1a226
2d40e80815ee149b6cce2714384c9b7f
y[7] ceb3bbcbd25228dda8306536376f8793
ecadd6020265dab9075f64c773ef97d0
y[8] 7352919995b74404cc69a6f3b469445c
9286a6b2c9f6dc839be76618f053de76
y[9] 3da3571ef70f805c9cc54b8e501a98b9
8c70785eeb61737eced78b0e380ded4f
y[10] 769a9d422786def59700eef3278017ba
bbe5f9063b468ae0dd61d94f9f99d5cc
y[11] 36fbec4178d2bda3ad31e1644a2bcce2
08d72d50a7637851aa908b94dc437612
y[12] 0d5beab0fb805e1945c41834dd6085e6
db1a3aa78fcb59f62bde68236a10618c
y[13] ff123abe64dae8dabb2e84ca705309c2
ab986d4f8326ba0642272cb3904eb96f
y[14] 6f5e3bb8813997881b6a33cac0714e4b
5e7a882ad87e141931f97d612b84e903
y[15] e773139ae377f5ba19ac86198d485fca
97742568f6ff758120a89bf19059b8a6
y[16] bfe2d86b12778164436ab2659ba86676
7fcc435584125fb7924201ee67b535da
y[17] f72c5cb31f5a0b1d926324c26e67d4c3
836e301aa09bae8fb3f91f1622b1818c
y[18] cf440f52ca9b5b9b99aba8a6754aae2b
967c4954fa85298ad9b1e74f27a46127
y[19] c36131c8991f0cc2ba57a15d35c91cf8
bc48e8e20d625af4e85d8f9402ec44af
y[20] bd4792b924b839332a64788a7701a300
94b9ec4b9f4b648f168bf457fbb3c959
y[21] 4fa87920b645e42aa2fecc9e21e000ca
7d3ff914e15c40a8bc533129a7fd3952
y[22] 9376430f355aaf96a0a13d13f2419141
b3cc25843e8c90d0e551a355dd90ad77
y[23] 0ea7255214ce11238605de2f000d2001
04d0c3a3e35ae64ea10a3eff37ac7e95
y[24] 49217cdf52f307172e2f6c7a2a4543e1
4314036525b1ad53eeaddf0e24b1f369
y[25] 14ed22483f2889f61e62b6fb78f5645b
dbb02c9e5bf97db7a0004e87c2a55399
y[26] b61958786c97bd52fa199c27f6bb4d68
c4907933562755bfec5d4fb52f06c289
y[27] d6e852cf6bc773ffd4c07ee2d6cc55f5
7edcfbc8e8692a49ad47a121fe3c1b16
y[28] cab1cc285faf6793ffad7a8c341a49c5
d2dce7069e464cb90a00b2903648b23c
y[29] 81a68e21d748a7e7b1df8a593f3894b2
477e8316947ca725d141135202a9442e
y[30] 1db33bbd390d2c04401c39b253b78ce2
97b0e14755e46ec08a146d279c67af70
y[31] de256890804d83d6ec5ca3286f1fca9c
72abf6ef868e7f6eb0fddda1b040ecec
y[32] 9bbc69e2fd8618e9db3bdb0af13dda06
c6617e95afa522d6a2552de15324d991
y[33] 19f55e9af11ae3d5614b564c642dbfec
6c644198ce80d2433ac8ee738f9d825e
--------------------------------------------
LMS type 0000000f # LMS_SHAKE_N32_H5
path[0] 71d585a35c3a908379f4072d070311db
5d65b242b714bc5a756ba5e228abfa0d
path[1] 1329978a05d5e815cf4d74c1e547ec4a
a3ca956ae927df8b29fb9fab3917a7a4
path[2] ae61ba57e5342e9db12caf6f6dbc5253
de5268d4b0c4ce4ebe6852f012b162fc
path[3] 1c12b9ffc3bcb1d3ac8589777655e22c
d9b99ff1e4346fd0efeaa1da044692e7
path[4] ad6bfc337db69849e54411df8920c228
a2b7762c11e4b1c49efb74486d3931eaFigure 12: Signature for SHAKE256/256 👑
A.4. Test Vector for SHA-256/192, W=4 💖
okay bestie, this is the big one 😭 we're doing SHA-256/192 with W=4 and the procedure from Appendix A of [RFC8554] is what ties it all together 🧚
--------------------------------------------
(note: procedure in Appendix A of [RFC8554] is used)
SEED 202122232425262728292a2b2c2d2e2f
3031323334353637
I 404142434445464748494a4b4c4d4e4f
--------------------------------------------Figure 13: Private Key for SHA256/192 with W=4 🔑
--------------------------------------------
HSS public key
levels 00000001
--------------------------------------------
LMS type 0000000d # LMS_SHA256_M24_H20
LM-OTS type 00000007 # LMOTS_SHA256_N24_W4
I 404142434445464748494a4b4c4d4e4f
K 9c08a50d170406869892802ee4142fcd
eac990f110c2460c
--------------------------------------------Figure 14: Public Key for SHA256/192 with W=4 🌸
--------------------------------------------
Message 54657374206d65737361676520666f72 |Test message for|
205348413235362f31393220773d34 | SHA256/192 w=4|
--------------------------------------------Figure 15: Message for SHA256/192 with W=4 💌
--------------------------------------------
HSS signature
Nspk 00000000
sig[0]:
--------------------------------------------
LMS signature
q 00000064
--------------------------------------------
LM-OTS signature
LM-OTS type 00000007 # LMOTS_SHA256_N24_W4
C 853fa6e1a65fef076acd2485505b93be
9aeb2641e3d3805c
y[0] 1887f26f4bcdb6ac0337b76fa5d66038
34287e010b20516f
y[1] 7c336df2134c0a981f1ec2bb7baee516
e91e67d3bd16c8d9
y[2] 45a7f2be4fd84a604ae3743efc609ee0
e69572e9c6d4a682
y[3] 50e877b75d3cae63e9d5c15a32bb3cd1
7045f6b3e195284f
y[4] dd1ee3cfbe18f1cbd06ef3e7af34b184
4d42dac453115a45
y[5] 07ed525cec120d054b403c61a7e5034f
ac4be6ef5412d194
y[6] d4b6bbc0ae6cd3fe9993d583ee06f403
0bc832efec24d1f7
y[7] 13f5088731b91a98491fa3adf1b322bc
e26df24c8415e3a4
y[8] 6bdfe07a6fd48e6d951515758cd64349
91098bf6949249fc
y[9] a338ec235871dd564998d07d9b1b1b8d
644e657fee8039da
y[10] 8fe195d129faddb12d543b86b0ab8cf6
f26c121783f3b828
y[11] d03f793b42909272f688e4ef6d46e82b
dd1a02b1ff86c3b7
y[12] 9920b2e6f19faf75c623242f1f2c549f
84fb2f4c3ffead31
y[13] 20d97baea507467bb2da79f132bbe15b
596fdfcb70983107
y[14] ebca2597de9d55bd83bcae5c28a85259
dadb354859986e60
y[15] c8afa0b10bd08a8f9ed9b1ede3377075
fe0ae36349f7d2ed
y[16] 7bfc9ece0d4cd6972059329419feaf3b
9a1045b6cfa4ae89
y[17] b1cea8950aea4af870d1a3a3909ebc5a
3013d6deb927abc0
y[18] f95093e83cb36a9c1d6f13add19268ac
7a0371f8335b0952
y[19] a57fdb0141d55d937dd6ebb08fee8a5c
f426ac97d54ee7aa
y[20] 17e6c57be5e62a52a6b1b986730d3a3a
ad8a7d327ddf883e
y[21] 6bc7b636eb2a5c4f2a635ae5bada5418
d43dfedb69c0a020
y[22] 9334fac89d420d6ad5a2e1df95d26a1b
feb99a5e8455061b
y[23] fdf2d6e8394caf8a4be699b8afa38e52
4d4053330af478f8
y[24] 5bf33d3ca3a35bc96987282bd513a8f6
a52db9ba36aa9088
y[25] 2b3bf573fa275449d8d49eb30bed2bb1
7a0ecc7d8a20807f
y[26] 2ea3dd37acd46c713cc2ac9d01a20a30
d6832eef86a1e26d
y[27] 1cad7761bf4130a6565572766026509d
eeddaf46b605452b
y[28] 218a4e137a7ce063b546a35c52510f0e
a2cac879192ec443
y[29] e43b37c5ffa23da7a7fc254324a3de70
5c771794f10ea356
y[30] e5a747e5146fd804a47719803c185b38
0e34b8dcc8269c2b
y[31] 073d86b2307cf90c6c3ef9271f2d53df
2579f0c4cfb632db
y[32] 37a9025965f70b4616673228e98644be
6576417b7a97f104
y[33] 350259e7f697408cdf8cf81a3e774162
6ccdb87ad8531264
y[34] cb5ceb7c8c097cec505091a3ee3a826c
54f78169abc2e7d0
y[35] a318dac10250ba940e51e79a3f572fb3
2bf442be6fd81267
y[36] 946e6387f9a8c705d945c653f2684655
e3fa6b9ee311d8a0
y[37] 91bef9898292fa272fb8761f066c23d8
7aa10d67871cc541
y[38] 9c843b796855c51ad1272e9264acd203
5a82b12c2ddbc85a
y[39] dfcd7c22366a36495349391dbf000106
4b8f6b28365445d7
y[40] 33e48f1b058a6cb3e71bbb8df3e90406
299894f4ca682943
y[41] ceeba410b33b07716ffc18d6eab75f2d
6372f1133605fa3c
y[42] 3ed66f2d8f7c5abe59e87d4500965e34
7523d73cb356c144
y[43] 827aaa22b1c72a15293c7400e02aaefc
f36f68a8246900e6
y[44] e6228e7ad19d1450c23434f1e45043dc
2b6db57f20d8f5b3
y[45] 44d4162aa651333287cd8bf8fac41c78
d61fe2929209bfe2
y[46] dc5a2f80205c043b22e540a29f0ea0a5
ff529e55bf1dfe42
y[47] 96fc4bb4ac2e875322ab115db479fe97
9d64f78409af4ec3
y[48] ad3b758fff83af1b9c48e90ca39366f4
26c2fb921df55c72
y[49] 786a9217723945a1ac1a66af7def4f8b
367001732cce0e5b
y[50] ac91ac9d603807f8bab105b46d315d4c
b88feb1c8686884b
--------------------------------------------
LMS type 0000000d # LMS_SHA256_M24_H20
path[0] 13d1a8ef00c5811c15c4d774fdcf7515
5315aff53ebdff8f
path[1] b6a54f12c165963dd5690cc9842b0e21
90afc5443497584c
path[2] 832155599d00aced84bb3b59170396f7
db4fa84aa8577f76
path[3] cf9367d6e99d3d5be3555d7156b004f2
002f505681b1ad22
path[4] 9b9b46a666672aa8ee662c3a0456a9ad
da7a44fbaca46789
path[5] 577dcd36dc5cdff34b864d0a32492a0a
cbcaa6c011748f20
path[6] 5b91ab2ab84f2333fb3e3b9acaecdac3
8b58aa5f32e718e2
path[7] 25631ed6674cccb8c119acbd4992ab31
30a6e912deec5983
path[8] 5ab52fbc549430f8b403e4a2a51cc7f4
6fc143d365763aa1
path[9] 708fd25bcd657a790e54718d97090624
2a3b8a97dff18e91
path[10] a44c4ba818a8dd2d242251265b023b82
6077eb740f6682e6
path[11] c4ada2b85a67988d406132c2ad899099
e44cfe610c3a5af7
path[12] 0b406224411a59597e5dda0f31cd16c9
14b67e96141661f0
path[13] 074f43eb02273481bc324ded26c64f23
88559d8c8bd0ef8b
path[14] 34ca4afebfac2a689b4246c264241488
dcf922350dc44f7b
path[15] c09d57dc1126291b2318810e0f44801c
071e572fd032c780
path[16] f44c9503a4c03c37417dc96422ba0849
c37956f9fd5d33ea
path[17] 4fcab84276effec652ca77d7d47ac93c
633d99e0a236f03d
path[18] 5587d1990ffaef737fced1f5cdd8f373
844e9f316aad41a0
path[19] b12302639f83a2d74c9fe30d305a942b
c0c30352a5e44dfbFigure 16: Signature for SHA256/192 with W=4 ✨
Acknowledgements 🫶
Huge thanks to Carsten Bormann, Russ Housley, Andrey Jivsov, Mallory Knodel, Virendra Kumar, Thomas Pornin, and Stanislav Smyshlyaev 💜 Their reviews were insightful and genuinely helpful, and the spec is better because of them. Iconic team 👑
Authors' Addresses 🦋
Scott Fluhrer Cisco Systems 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA United States of America Email: sfluhrer@cisco.com
Quynh Dang NIST 100 Bureau Drive Gaithersburg, MD United States of America Email: quynh.dang@nist.gov
📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc9858 2025-10
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms