|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:46:25 -0800 From: Dan Kaminsky <dan@doxpara.com> To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu> Cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com In-Reply-To: <20050316170201.2BC253C04DC@berkshire.machshav.com> Steven M. Bellovin wrote: >We all understand the need to move to better hash algorithms than SHA1. >At a minimum, people should be switching to SHA256/384/512; arguably, >Whirlpool is the right way to go. The problem is how to get there from >here. > > I've been rather continually pinging people, asking them for an explanation as to the design decisions of Whirlpool (namely -- it's similar but noticably not identical to AES/Rijndael, and isn't just a straightforward expansion of the block size up to 512 bits). I'm not saying anything bad about Whirlpool, but I get alot of people approaching me about the hash and I don't really know what to tell them. --Dan --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |