1 |
My apologies, I forgot to address something: |
2 |
|
3 |
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Hanno Böck <hanno@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 12:12:44 -0500 |
5 |
> R0b0t1 <r030t1@×××××.com> wrote: |
6 |
> |
7 |
>> That is precisely why I didn't suggest it be used on its own (see note |
8 |
>> about extant use of MD5), and why I gave alternatives. If it is |
9 |
>> desired that the hashes be computed quickly then weaker hashes will |
10 |
>> need to be used. One usually can't have both security and speed. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> You can have that. Blake2 is faster than any broken legacy hash. |
13 |
> And ripemd isn't particularly fast |
14 |
> |
15 |
|
16 |
Fair enough, but it is new and may have security problems related to |
17 |
its operation that have not been found. This is hard to reason about, |
18 |
but I would note that many cryptographic standards are fairly |
19 |
conservative for similar reasons. |
20 |
|
21 |
Ease of computation reduces security. |
22 |
|
23 |
Respectfully, |
24 |
R0b0t1 |