| 1 |
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 12:12:44 -0500 |
| 2 |
R0b0t1 <r030t1@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> That is precisely why I didn't suggest it be used on its own (see note |
| 5 |
> about extant use of MD5), and why I gave alternatives. If it is |
| 6 |
> desired that the hashes be computed quickly then weaker hashes will |
| 7 |
> need to be used. One usually can't have both security and speed. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
You can have that. Blake2 is faster than any broken legacy hash. |
| 10 |
And ripemd isn't particularly fast |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> People are discussing collision resistance, but no one here appears to |
| 13 |
> be trained in cryptography. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
For the record, I'd claim I am. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
Hanno Böck |
| 19 |
https://hboeck.de/ |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
mail/jabber: hanno@××××××.de |
| 22 |
GPG: FE73757FA60E4E21B937579FA5880072BBB51E42 |
Archives