Galen Hazelwood wrote:
>Forced to choose, I would say SHA-1. The design parameters aren't
>_that_ secret; there's an excellent discussion and comparison in
>Schneier's "Applied Cryptography" 2nd Ed. (You don't have a copy?
>Shame on you!)
Of course I have a copy (shame on you for suggesting th
Santiago Vila Doncel wrote:
>BTW: Just curiosity: I would be delighted to see two different files
>having the same md5sum. Do you have a simple example?
See http://www.ph.tn.tudelft.nl/~visser/hashes.html . Dobbertin's
paper, http://www.ph.tn.tudelft.nl/~visser/dobbertin.ps , shows
an example [
Thomas Koenig wrote:
> An attractive alternative would be RIPEMD-160. SHA-1, another
> alternative, has the main problem that its design parameters are secret.
> Source code for RIPEMD-160 is avialiable, and the algorithm is in the
> public domain. For more information, you can check out
> http:/
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> > I think we should start moving away from MD5 as our main hash function.
> > MD5 has known weaknesses so that an attacker can quite possibly create
> > two files, differing maybe in a single bit or in quite a few byte
Thomas Koenig wrote:
> I think we should start moving away from MD5 as our main hash function.
> An attractive alternative would be RIPEMD-160.
> http://www.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/~bosselae/ripemd160.html
This is probably a good thing to agree to do, before Klee redesigns dpkg to
handle verificatio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> I think we should start moving away from MD5 as our main hash function.
> MD5 has known weaknesses so that an attacker can quite possibly create
> two files, differing maybe in a single bit or in quite a few bytes, but
6 matches
Mail list logo
