Talk:CCM mode

Cryptography: Computer science High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography 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.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as High-importance).

The External Links and References sections beg to be combined. Alternatively, NIST can be moved into References, while critique moved to External Links. My vote is in; listening to other folks. Dimawik 03:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CCM* (ZigBee) seems to imply that vanilla CCM must have plain text (CTX) and additional authentication data (HDR). This is not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.17.181 (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link to IEEE 802.15.4 in ref 5 is broken. This link works: http://ecee.colorado.edu/~liue/teaching/comm_standards/2015S_zigbee/802.15.4-2011.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.208.135.66 (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The part of the Patent section claiming that OCB is more efficient is not true for hardware implementations. OCB requires both AES encryption and AES decryption, whereas for CCM, only AES encrypt is required. This reduces the hardware cost by up to 50 percent. This was well known to those of us working in the 802.11i committee at the time and was one of the two deciding factors - the other being the patents. OCB offered more parallelism opportunities and so is a benefit for higher throughput data links. 802.11 does not present data rates that are a challenge for CCM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David in oregon (talk • contribs) 06:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]