I'm trying to encrypt a std::vector with XTEA. Because using std::vector brings various benefits dealing with big amounts of data, i want to use it.
The XTEA-Alogrithm uses two unsigned longs (v0 and v1) which take 64 bits of data, to encrypt them.
xtea_enc(unsigned char buf[], int length, unsigned char key[], unsigned char** outbuf)
/* Source http://pastebin.com/uEvZqmUj */
unsigned long v0 = *((unsigned long*)(buf+n));
unsigned long v1 = *((unsigned long*)(buf+n+4));
My problem is, that I'm looking for the best way to convert my char vector into a unsigned long pointer.
Or is there another way to split vector in 64-bit parts for the encryption function?
The insight comes in realizing that each char is a byte; thus a 64 bit number consists of 8 bytes or two 32 bit numbers.
Thus one 32 bit number can store 4 bytes, so you would for each 8 byte block in your char vector, store a pair of 4 byte numbers in a pair of 32 bit numbers. You would then pass this pair in to your xtea function, something like:
uint32_t datablock[2];
datablock[0] = (buf[0] << 24) | (buf[1] << 16) | (buf[2] << 8) | (buf[3]);
datablock[1] = (buf[4] << 24) | (buf[5] << 16) | (buf[6] << 8) | (buf[7]);
where in this example, buf is the type char[8] (or more appropriately uint8_t[8]).
The bit-shift '<<' operator shifts the placement of where a given byte's bits should be stored in the uint32_t (thus for example, the first byte in the above example is stored in the first 8 bits of datablock[0]). The '|' operator provides a concatenaton of all bits so that you end up with the full 32 bit number. Hope that makes sense.
My problem is, that I'm looking for the best way to convert my char vector into a unsigned long pointer.
((unsigned long*)vec.data()) since C++11 or ((unsigned long*)&vec[0])) pre-c++11?
PS: i guess someone will come along and argue that it should be a reinterpret_cast<unsigned long*>() or something sooner or later, and they'll probably be right.
also, i used a std::string, but here's how i did the enciper loop:
string message = readMessage();
for (size_t i = 0; i < message.length(); i += 8)
{
encipher(32, (uint32_t *)&message[i], keys);
}
// now message is encrypted
and
for (size_t i = 0; i < message.length(); i += 8)
{
decipher(32, (uint32_t *)&message[i], keys);
}
// now message is decrypted (still may have padding bytes tho)
and i just used the sample C enciper/deciper functions from XTEA's wikipedia page.
Related
I'm using winsock to receive udp messages 256 bits long. I use 8 32-bit integers to hold the data.
int32_t dataReceived[8];
recvfrom(client, (char *)&dataReceived, 8 * sizeof(int), 0, &fromAddr, &fromLen);
I need to grab specific bits like, bit #100, #225, #55, etc. So some bits will be in dataReceived[3], some in dataReceived[4], etc.
I was thinking I need to bitshift each array, but things got complicated. Am I approaching this all wrong?
Why are you using int32_t type for buffer elements and not uint32_t?
I usually use something like this:
int bit_needed = 100;
uint32_t the_bit = dataReceived[bit_needed>>5] & (1U << (bit_needed & 0x1F));
Or you can use this one (but it won't work for sign in signed integers):
int bit_needed = 100;
uint32_t the_bit = (dataReceived[bit_needed>>5] >> (bit_needed & 0x1F)) & 1U;
In other answers you can access only lowes 8bits in each int32_t.
When you count bits and bytes from 0:
int bit_needed = 100;
So:
int byte = int(bit_needed / 8);
int bit = bit_needed % 8;
int the_bit = dataReceived[byte] & (1 << bit);
If the recuired bit contains 0, then the_bit will be zero. If it's 1, then the_bit will hold 2 to the power of that bit ordinal place within the byte.
You can make a small function to do the job.
uint8_t checkbit(uint32_t *dataReceived, int bitToCheck)
{
byte = bitToCheck/32;
bit = bitToCheck - byte*32;
if( dataReceived[byte] & (1U<< bit))
return 1;
else
return 0;
}
Note that you should use uint32_t rather than int32_t, if you are using bit shifting. Signed integer bit shifts lead to unwanted results, especially if the MSbit is 1.
You can use a macro in C or C++ to check for specific bit:
#define bit_is_set(var,bit) ((var) & (1 << (bit)))
and then a simple if:
if(bit_is_set(message,29)){
//bit is set
}
I'm kind of at a loss i want to extract up to 64bits with a defined bitoffset and bitlength (unsigned long long) from a string (coming from network).
The string can be at an undefined length, so i need to be sure to only access it Bytewise. (Also means i cant use _bextr_u32 intrinsic). I cant use the std bitset class because it doesnt allow extraction of more then one bit with an offset and also only allows extraction of a predefined number of bits.
So I already calculate the byteoffset (within the string) and bitoffset (within the starting byte).
m_nByteOffset = nBitOffset / 8;
m_nBitOffset = nBitOffset % 8;
Now i can get the starting address
const char* sSource = str.c_str()+m_nByteOffset;
And the bitmask
unsigned long long nMask = 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFULL >> (64-nBitLen);
But now I just cant figure out how to extract up to 64 bits from this as there are no 128 bit integers available.
unsigned long long nResult = ((*(unsigned long long*)sSource) >> m_nBitOffset) & nMask;
This only works for up to 64-bitoffset bits, how can i extend it to really work for 64 bit indepently of the bitoffset. And also as this is not a bytewise access it could cause a memory read access violation.
So im really looking for a bytewise solution to this problem that works for up to 64 bits. (preferably C or intrinsics)
Update: After searching and testing a lot I will probably use this function from RakNet:
https://github.com/OculusVR/RakNet/blob/master/Source/BitStream.cpp#L551
To do it byte-wise, just read the string (which BTW it is better to interpret as a sequence of uint8_t rather than char) one byte at a time, updating your result by shifting it left 8 and oring it with the current byte. The only complications are the first bit and the last bit, which both require you to read a part of a byte. For the first part simply use a bit mask to get the bit you need, and for the last part down shift it by the amount needed. Here is the code:
const uint8_t* sSource = reinterpret_cast<const uint8_t*>(str.c_str()+m_nByteOffset);
uint64_t result = 0;
uint8_t FULL_MASK = 0xFF;
if(m_nBitOffset) {
result = (*sSource & (FULL_MASK >> m_nBitOffset));
nBitLen -= (8 - m_nBitOffset);
sSource++;
}
while(nBitLen > 8) {
result <<= 8;
result |= *sSource;
nBitLen -= 8;
++sSource;
}
if(nBitLen) {
result <<= nBitLen;
result |= (*sSource >> (8 - nBitLen));
}
return result;
This is how I would do it in modern C++ style.
The bit length is determined by the size of the buffer extractedBits: instead of using an unsigned long long, you could also use any other data type (or even array type) with the desired size.
See it live
unsigned long long extractedBits;
char* extractedString = reinterpret_cast<char*>(&extractedBits);
std::transform(str.begin() + m_nByteOffset,
str.begin() + m_nByteOffset + sizeof(extractedBits),
str.begin() + m_nByteOffset + 1,
extractedString,
[=](char c, char d)
{
char bitsFromC = (c << m_nBitOffset);
char bitsFromD =
(static_cast<unsigned char>(d) >> (CHAR_BIT - m_nBitOffset));
return bitsFromC | bitsFromD;
});
The dataFile.bin is a binary file with 6-byte records. The first 3
bytes of each record contain the latitude and the last 3 bytes contain
the longitude. Each 24 bit value represents radians multiplied by
0X1FFFFF
This is a task I've been working on. I havent done C++ in years so its taking me way longer than I thought it would -_-. After googling around I saw this algorthim which made sense to me.
int interpret24bitAsInt32(byte[] byteArray) {
int newInt = (
((0xFF & byteArray[0]) << 16) |
((0xFF & byteArray[1]) << 8) |
(0xFF & byteArray[2])
);
if ((newInt & 0x00800000) > 0) {
newInt |= 0xFF000000;
} else {
newInt &= 0x00FFFFFF;
}
return newInt;
}
The problem is a syntax issue I am restricting to working by the way the other guy had programmed this. I am not understanding how I can store the CHAR "data" into an INT. Wouldn't it make more sense if "data" was an Array? Since its receiving 24 integers of information stored into a BYTE.
double BinaryFile::from24bitToDouble(char *data) {
int32_t iValue;
// ****************************
// Start code implementation
// Task: Fill iValue with the 24bit integer located at data.
// The first byte is the LSB.
// ****************************
//iValue +=
// ****************************
// End code implementation
// ****************************
return static_cast<double>(iValue) / FACTOR;
}
bool BinaryFile::readNext(DataRecord &record)
{
const size_t RECORD_SIZE = 6;
char buffer[RECORD_SIZE];
m_ifs.read(buffer,RECORD_SIZE);
if (m_ifs) {
record.latitude = toDegrees(from24bitToDouble(&buffer[0]));
record.longitude = toDegrees(from24bitToDouble(&buffer[3]));
return true;
}
return false;
}
double BinaryFile::toDegrees(double radians) const
{
static const double PI = 3.1415926535897932384626433832795;
return radians * 180.0 / PI;
}
I appreciate any help or hints even if you dont understand a clue or hint will help me alot. I just need to talk to someone.
I am not understanding how I can store the CHAR "data" into an INT.
Since char is a numeric type, there is no problem combining them into a single int.
Since its receiving 24 integers of information stored into a BYTE
It's 24 bits, not bytes, so there are only three integer values that need to be combined.
An easier way of producing the same result without using conditionals is as follows:
int interpret24bitAsInt32(byte[] byteArray) {
return (
(byteArray[0] << 24)
| (byteArray[1] << 16)
| (byteArray[2] << 8)
) >> 8;
}
The idea is to store the three bytes supplied as an input into the upper three bytes of the four-byte int, and then shift it down by one byte. This way the program would sign-extend your number automatically, avoiding conditional execution.
Note on portability: This code is not portable, because it assumes 32-bit integer size. To make it portable use <cstdint> types:
int32_t interpret24bitAsInt32(const std::array<uint8_t,3> byteArray) {
return (
(const_cast<int32_t>(byteArray[0]) << 24)
| (const_cast<int32_t>(byteArray[1]) << 16)
| (const_cast<int32_t>(byteArray[2]) << 8)
) >> 8;
}
It also assumes that the most significant byte of the 24-bit number is stored in the initial element of byteArray, then comes the middle element, and finally the least significant byte.
Note on sign extension: This code automatically takes care of sign extension by constructing the value in the upper three bytes and then shifting it to the right, as opposed to constructing the value in the lower three bytes right away. This additional shift operation ensures that C++ takes care of sign-extending the result for us.
When an unsigned char is casted to an int the higher order bits are filled with 0's
When a signed char is casted to a casted int, the sign bit is extended.
ie:
int x;
char y;
unsigned char z;
y=0xFF
z=0xFF
x=y;
/*x will be 0xFFFFFFFF*/
x=z;
/*x will be 0x000000FF*/
So, your algorithm, uses 0xFF as a mask to remove C' sign extension, ie
0xFF == 0x000000FF
0xABCDEF10 & 0x000000FF == 0x00000010
Then uses bit shifts and logical ands to put the bits in their proper place.
Lastly checks the most significant bit (newInt & 0x00800000) > 0 to decide if completing with 0's or ones the highest byte.
int32_t upperByte = ((int32_t) dataRx[0] << 24);
int32_t middleByte = ((int32_t) dataRx[1] << 16);
int32_t lowerByte = ((int32_t) dataRx[2] << 8);
int32_t ADCdata32 = (((int32_t) (upperByte | middleByte | lowerByte)) >> 8); // Right-shift of signed data maintains signed bit
Ok, I'm using a raw SHA1 hash to seed a Mersenne Twister pseudo-random number generator
the generator gives me the option to seed either with an unsigned long or a array of unsigned longs
the SHA1 class I'm using gives me the hash as a 20 byte array of unsigned chars
I figured I could recast this array of chars to an array of longs to get a working seed but how can I know how long the resulting array of longs is?
example code:
CSHA1 sha1;
sha1.Update((unsigned char*)key, size_key);
sha1.Final();
unsigned char* hash;
sha1.GetHash(hash);
// Seed the random with the key
MTRand mt((unsigned long*)hash, <size of array of longs>);
I'm hoping that there is no data loss (as in no bytes are dropped off) as I need this to remain cryptography secure
You can say
sizeof(unsigned long) / sizeof(unsigned char)
to get the number of octets in a long.
However there are two potential problems with simply casting.
First, the array of chars might not be properly aligned. On some processors this can cause a trap. On others it just slows execution.
Second, you're asking for byte order problems if the program must work the same way on different architecutures.
You can solve both problems by copying the bytes into an array of longs explicitly. Untested code:
const int bytes_per_long = sizeof(unsigned long) / sizeof(unsigned char);
unsigned long hash_copy[key_length_in_bytes / bytes_per_long];
int i_hash = 0;
for (int i_copy = 0; i_copy < sizeof hash_copy / sizeof hash_copy[0]; i_copy++) {
unsigned long b = 0;
for (int i_byte = 0; i_byte < bytes_per_long; i_byte++)
b = (b << 8) | hash[i_hash++];
hash_copy[i_copy] = b;
}
// Now use hash_copy.
You can use len_of_chars * sizeof(char) / sizeof(long), where len_of_chars is presumably 20.
Your library seems to assume 32-bit unsigned longs, so there's no [more] harm in you doing the same. In fact, I'd go as far to assume 8-bit unsigned chars and perhaps even unpadded, little-endian representations for both. So you could use a simple cast (though I'd use a reinterpret_cast), or maybe #Gene's memcpy sample for alignment.
Portable code*, however, should use <cstdint>, the uint#_t types therein and piecewise, by-value copying for conversion:
uint32_t littleEndianInt8sToInt32(uint8_t bytes[4]) {
return bytes[0] | (bytes[1] << 8) | (bytes[2] << 16) | (bytes[3] << 24);
}
...and better names. Sorry, it's getting late here :)
*: Though, of course, stdint itself isn't very portable (>= C++11) and the exact-width types aren't guaranteed to be in it. Ironic.
In C/C++, is there an easy way to apply bitwise operators (specifically left/right shifts) to dynamically allocated memory?
For example, let's say I did this:
unsigned char * bytes=new unsigned char[3];
bytes[0]=1;
bytes[1]=1;
bytes[2]=1;
I would like a way to do this:
bytes>>=2;
(then the 'bytes' would have the following values):
bytes[0]==0
bytes[1]==64
bytes[2]==64
Why the values should be that way:
After allocation, the bytes look like this:
[00000001][00000001][00000001]
But I'm looking to treat the bytes as one long string of bits, like this:
[000000010000000100000001]
A right shift by two would cause the bits to look like this:
[000000000100000001000000]
Which finally looks like this when separated back into the 3 bytes (thus the 0, 64, 64):
[00000000][01000000][01000000]
Any ideas? Should I maybe make a struct/class and overload the appropriate operators? Edit: If so, any tips on how to proceed? Note: I'm looking for a way to implement this myself (with some guidance) as a learning experience.
I'm going to assume you want bits carried from one byte to the next, as John Knoeller suggests.
The requirements here are insufficient. You need to specify the order of the bits relative to the order of the bytes - when the least significant bit falls out of one byte, does to go to the next higher or next lower byte.
What you are describing, though, used to be very common for graphics programming. You have basically described a monochrome bitmap horizontal scrolling algorithm.
Assuming that "right" means higher addresses but less significant bits (ie matching the normal writing conventions for both) a single-bit shift will be something like...
void scroll_right (unsigned char* p_Array, int p_Size)
{
unsigned char orig_l = 0;
unsigned char orig_r;
unsigned char* dest = p_Array;
while (p_Size > 0)
{
p_Size--;
orig_r = *p_Array++;
*dest++ = (orig_l << 7) + (orig_r >> 1);
orig_l = orig_r;
}
}
Adapting the code for variable shift sizes shouldn't be a big problem. There's obvious opportunities for optimisation (e.g. doing 2, 4 or 8 bytes at a time) but I'll leave that to you.
To shift left, though, you should use a separate loop which should start at the highest address and work downwards.
If you want to expand "on demand", note that the orig_l variable contains the last byte above. To check for an overflow, check if (orig_l << 7) is non-zero. If your bytes are in an std::vector, inserting at either end should be no problem.
EDIT I should have said - optimising to handle 2, 4 or 8 bytes at a time will create alignment issues. When reading 2-byte words from an unaligned char array, for instance, it's best to do the odd byte read first so that later word reads are all at even addresses up until the end of the loop.
On x86 this isn't necessary, but it is a lot faster. On some processors it's necessary. Just do a switch based on the base (address & 1), (address & 3) or (address & 7) to handle the first few bytes at the start, before the loop. You also need to special case the trailing bytes after the main loop.
Decouple the allocation from the accessor/mutators
Next, see if a standard container like bitset can do the job for you
Otherwise check out boost::dynamic_bitset
If all fails, roll your own class
Rough example:
typedef unsigned char byte;
byte extract(byte value, int startbit, int bitcount)
{
byte result;
result = (byte)(value << (startbit - 1));
result = (byte)(result >> (CHAR_BITS - bitcount));
return result;
}
byte *right_shift(byte *bytes, size_t nbytes, size_t n) {
byte rollover = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < nbytes; ++i) {
bytes[ i ] = (bytes[ i ] >> n) | (rollover < n);
byte rollover = extract(bytes[ i ], 0, n);
}
return &bytes[ 0 ];
}
Here's how I would do it for two bytes:
unsigned int rollover = byte[0] & 0x3;
byte[0] >>= 2;
byte[1] = byte[1] >> 2 | (rollover << 6);
From there, you can generalize this into a loop for n bytes. For flexibility, you will want to generate the magic numbers (0x3 and 6) rather then hardcode them.
I'd look into something similar to this:
#define number_of_bytes 3
template<size_t num_bytes>
union MyUnion
{
char bytes[num_bytes];
__int64 ints[num_bytes / sizeof(__int64) + 1];
};
void main()
{
MyUnion<number_of_bytes> mu;
mu.bytes[0] = 1;
mu.bytes[1] = 1;
mu.bytes[2] = 1;
mu.ints[0] >>= 2;
}
Just play with it. You'll get the idea I believe.
Operator overloading is syntactic sugar. It's really just a way of calling a function and passing your byte array without having it look like you are calling a function.
So I would start by writing this function
unsigned char * ShiftBytes(unsigned char * bytes, size_t count_of_bytes, int shift);
Then if you want to wrap this up in an operator overload in order to make it easier to use or because you just prefer that syntax, you can do that as well. Or you can just call the function.