[16215] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Time for new hash standard
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU ("Hal Finney")
Mon Sep 20 16:23:26 2004
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
To: cryptography@metzdowd.com, nelson@crynwr.com
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:43:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: hal@finney.org ("Hal Finney")
Bruce Schneier wrote:
> Luckily, there are alternatives. The National Institute of Standards and
> Technology already has standards for longer - and harder to break - hash
> functions: SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512. They're already
> government standards, and can already be used. This is a good stopgap, but
> I'd like to see more.
Russell Nelson suggested:
> http://cr.yp.to/antiforgery.html#hash127
I believe this is a MAC, despite the name. It seems to be easier to
create secure MACs than secure hash functions, perhaps because there are
no secrets in a hash, while in a MAC there is a secret key that makes
the attacker's job harder.
Hal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
