[16070] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Implementation choices in light of recent attacks?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim McCoy)
Wed Sep 1 12:55:56 2004
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
From: Jim McCoy <mccoy@mad-scientist.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 09:26:34 -0700
After digesting the various bits of information and speculation on the
recent breaks and partial attacks on various popular hash functions I
am wondering if anyone has suggestions for implementation choices for
someone needing a (hopefully) strong hash today, but who needs to keep
the hash output size in the 128-192 bit range. A cursory examination
of Tiger seems to indicate that it uses a different methodology than
the MDx & SHAx lines, does this mean that it does not suffer from the
recent hash attacks? Would a SHA256 that has its output chopped be
sufficient?
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
