[Hardware] RC5 with FPGAs

[Martin Klingensmith]

I intend to do a System C implementation but as part of my graduate work 
to publish a paper about using System C for this application.
I started a pipelined FPGA-C version last year around this time but I 
ran out of time to finish it. I might still have the code sitting around.
I use Verilog and not VHDL, so this may be problem for me if we want to 
work together and you use VHDL.
I have access to Synplify Pro so my implementations should be quite 
efficient. I just checked at digilentinc.com and they have a new Spartan 
3 board called the 'Nexys' that has a 1M gate option running up to 
500MHz - the board is $120 with the 1M gate device.
What do you think?
--
Martin

Fugu wrote:
> Doing a quick survey of the hardware list, there seems to be many 
> people(me included), that seem, to various stages, to be dabbling with 
> an FPGA (or other soft silicon) implementation.
> I hereby propose that we make a central area for such developments, to 
> coordinate development.
> Another techinical idea: Instead of fine tuning each implementation to 
> each FPGA, we could have one "main" code, and use a core generator 
> program to tune it to each individual FPGA, to allow for maximum 
> optimization.
>
>
> On 9/5/06, *Fugu* <roguefugu at gmail.com <mailto:roguefugu at gmail.com>> 
> wrote:
>
>     By the way, I am also working on a FPGA implementation.
>     A technique that can accelerate keyspeed is this:
>     1) Use pipelining
>     2) Have the maximum numbers of decryption engines, as to use all
>     the gates.
>     BTW, posting your core on opencores.org <http://opencores.org>
>     would enable it to be checked for bugs and improved.
>
>
>     On 6/14/06, *Jim C. Nasby* < decibel at distributed.net
>     <mailto:decibel at distributed.net>> wrote:
>
>         On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 03:13:04PM -0600, Fugu wrote:
>         > One could do hardware error detection by re-encrypting the
>         "decrypted"
>         > message by the same key, and comparing it to the given message.
>
>         Yes, but that gives much less protection than checking things
>         on the
>         server does.
>         --
>         Jim C. Nasby, Database
>         Architect            decibel at distributed.net
>         <mailto:decibel at distributed.net>
>         Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net
>         <http://www.distributed.net> Team #1828
>
>         Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
>         Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
>         FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
>         _______________________________________________
>         Hardware mailing list
>         Hardware at lists.distributed.net
>         <mailto:Hardware at lists.distributed.net>
>         http://lists.distributed.net/mailman/listinfo/hardware
>         <http://lists.distributed.net/mailman/listinfo/hardware>
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     FIN|ACK
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> FIN|ACK
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hardware mailing list
> Hardware at lists.distributed.net
> http://lists.distributed.net/mailman/listinfo/hardware
>