Any message that is 448 bytes or larger is padded beyond the block size, and runs a second iteration of the compression function. If messages beyond this limit excluding intervals of 512 bytes seem to work correctly, it is probably a simple math error. If it was an endianness issue, all lengths greater than 1 would fail.

I assume you are using a byte oriented approach to the design, therefore the padding byte [80] starts the first block, followed by [00] valued bytes, followed by the 64-bit length [0000000000000200], making the block look like this:

80 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000200

Any message that is 448 bits or larger is padded beyond the block size, and runs a second iteration of the compression function. If messages beyond this limit excluding intervals of 512 bits seem to work correctly, it is probably a simple math error. If it was an endianness issue, all lengths greater than 1 would fail.

I assume you are using a byte oriented approach to the design, therefore the padding byte [80] starts the first block, followed by [00] valued bytes, followed by the 64-bit length [0000000000000200], making the block look like this:

80 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000200

Any message that is 448 bytes or larger is padded beyond the block size, and runs a second iteration of the compression function. If messages beyond this limit excluding intervals of 512 bytes seem to work correctly, it is probably a simple math error. If it was an endianness issue, all lengths greater than 1 would fail.

I assume you are using a byte oriented approach to the design, therefore the padding byte [80] starts the first block, followed by 0-bits, followed by the 64-bit length [0000000000000200], making the block look like this:

80 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000200

Any message that is 448 bytes or larger is padded beyond the block size, and runs a second iteration of the compression function. If messages beyond this limit excluding intervals of 512 bytes seem to work correctly, it is probably a simple math error. If it was an endianness issue, all lengths greater than 1 would fail.

I assume you are using a byte oriented approach to the design, therefore the padding byte [80] starts the first block, followed by [00] valued bytes, followed by the 64-bit length [0000000000000200], making the block look like this:

80 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000200