Re: Hashing Functions
From: Julien Gremillot (julien.gremillot_at_gmail.com)
Date: 03/26/05
- Previous message: Daniel Miessler: "Re: GIAC Dilution"
- In reply to: Steven DeFord: "Hashing Functions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 22:49:54 +0100 To: Steven DeFord <security.willworker@gmail.com>
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:21:04 -0800, Steven DeFord
<security.willworker@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know SHA-1 has been broken. What does this mean for SHA-n (for n <>
> 1)? Are they significantly different algorithms, or something similar
> but with longer key length?
SHA-256, SHA-384 and SHA-512 seems to out-of-range for cryptanalists,
at least for the moment.
The fact is that they were recently designed (published by NIST when
AES 128, 192 and 256 keys became widely used, as they make it "easier"
to use), so there is (nearly) nothing published about them.
So, for the moment at least, no problem about using SHA-n (n>1). NIST
was planning (2004/08) to move to SHA-256 or 512 step by step,
finishing in 2010. Seems like they'll have to move faster.
-- Julien Gremillot
- Previous message: Daniel Miessler: "Re: GIAC Dilution"
- In reply to: Steven DeFord: "Hashing Functions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
