[13168] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: The Pure Crypto Project's Hash Function
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rich Salz)
Sat May 3 12:43:02 2003
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 11:32:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
To: Ralf Senderek <ralf@senderek.de>
Cc: "cryptography@metzdowd.com" <cryptography@metzdowd.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.31.0305031723060.2035-100000@safe.senderek.de>
> > Isn't it better to have clean implementations of known algorithms that
> > have been widely understood and studied by the cryptographic community?
>
> That's why RSA is used in the project.
But you "invented" a new hashing mechanism. Why do you think the industry
has settled on RSA/SHA1 as a standard?
I also forgot to ask if we haven't learned enough from PGP: interop is
important. What's your compelling reason to throw that away?
I think this is a real bad approach.
/r$
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
