Wouter Verhelst writes:
> Uhh? AFAIK, RIPEMD160 is not compromised at all, not even in a
> theoretical attack. Why was this part of the decision taken?
> (there is a theoretical attack against RIPEMD, but that is not the same
> thing as RIPEMD160)
Crypto folks have been dubious about RIPEMD160
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 09:48:21AM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
[stuff]
This is also just to say, I'm glad both algorithms have been removed,
and refused on new uploads, and thanks to ansgar for doing this.
Cheers,
Paul
--
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 02:43:13PM +, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>
> > > or RIPE-MD/160 algorithms.
> >
> > Uhh? AFAIK, RIPEMD160 is not compromised at all, not even in a
> > theoretical attack. Why was this part of the decision taken?
> >
> > (there
On Fri, 24 Feb 2017, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > or RIPE-MD/160 algorithms.
>
> Uhh? AFAIK, RIPEMD160 is not compromised at all, not even in a
> theoretical attack. Why was this part of the decision taken?
>
> (there is a theoretical attack against RIPEMD, but that is not the same
> thing as RIPE
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 09:07:23PM +0100, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> The archive no longer accepts uploads signed using the SHA-1
Yay!
(https://shattered.io is fun)
> or RIPE-MD/160 algorithms.
Uhh? AFAIK, RIPEMD160 is not compromised at all, not even in a
theoretical attack. Why was this part o
5 matches
Mail list logo
