| 1 |
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 05:21:47PM -0500, R0b0t1 wrote: |
| 2 |
> I would like to present my suggestions: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> SHA512, (RIPEMD160 | WHIRLPOOL | BLAKE2B), (SHA3_512 | BLAKE2B); |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> or more definitively: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> SHA512, RIPEMD160, BLAKE2B. |
| 9 |
Please do NOT reintroduce RIPEMD160. It was one of the older Portage |
| 10 |
hashes prior to implementation of GLEP059, and was removed because it |
| 11 |
was shown to fall to parts of the same attacks at MD4/MD5 by Wang's |
| 12 |
paper in 2004. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Wang, X. et al. (2004). "Collisions for Hash Functions MD4, MD5, |
| 15 |
HAVAL-128 and RIPEMD", rump session, CRYPTO 2004, Cryptology ePrint |
| 16 |
Archive, Report 2004/199, first version (August 16, 2004), second |
| 17 |
version (August 17, 2004). Available online from: |
| 18 |
http://eprint.iacr.org/2004/199.pdf |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
| 22 |
Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Asst. Treasurer |
| 23 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
| 24 |
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85 |
| 25 |
GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136 |
Archives