@SEJPM It seems the "blatantly off-topic" option is not one of the custom ones.

Or if it is, it means we have four custom close reasons, not three.

you can always write that one in

"nothing to do with cryptography"

(my opinion wrt one of the close reasons that always bugged me)

Does that sound right, that those questions could be closed as too broad?

If we're trying to consolidate and compress close reasons, that actually does seem reasonable

I've just seen that reason ("reviewing full cryptographic designs") being used to close questions that seem completely valid, like asking why a particular scheme is insecure in a particular scenario. Plus it's inconsistent, since I've asked questions that could be closed under that reason but never were (e.g. this one).

uhhm that codebeautify site makes no sense

it says "generate HMAC" for everything, despite most of the algorithms listed not being HMAC

do they give consistent answers across different sites?

@kelalaka I tested the test vector against pythons HMAC and it seems to work

I wouldn't be surprised if those sites simply got something wrong somewhere

Some have the same results. But I did not write..

tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4231#section-4.3 this test vector works

so if the site doesn't pass this test vector, the site is broken

You mean works with the Python code?

Yes, python has an hmac module

and I tested it with the linked test vector

and they match

Let begin site hunting :)

nice, @EllaRose just migrated a Q 1min 28s after it was posted

I also welcomed them, commented on it, and checked their profile to make sure it didn't already exist on SO! :D

Actually, why don't we write some common responses and put them meta or locally instead of writing again and again?

There are sites that did that