Re: How about MD5(NewHash(DATA))?
From: Paul Rubin (//phr.cx_at_NOSPAM.invalid)
Date: 10/31/04
- Next message: Tom St Denis: "Re: How about MD5(NewHash(DATA))?"
- Previous message: Tom St Denis: "Re: A Simple Encryption Mode that "Feels" Secure"
- In reply to: Tom St Denis: "Re: How about MD5(NewHash(DATA))?"
- Next in thread: Tom St Denis: "Re: How about MD5(NewHash(DATA))?"
- Reply: Tom St Denis: "Re: How about MD5(NewHash(DATA))?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 31 Oct 2004 07:43:26 -0800
Tom St Denis <tomstdenis@iahu.ca> writes:
> Why would you think MD5 o MD5 would be stronger than MD5 [supposedly
> against finding collisions, though you could have meant against
> inversion]
Read Krawczyk's paper about HMAC :).
- Next message: Tom St Denis: "Re: How about MD5(NewHash(DATA))?"
- Previous message: Tom St Denis: "Re: A Simple Encryption Mode that "Feels" Secure"
- In reply to: Tom St Denis: "Re: How about MD5(NewHash(DATA))?"
- Next in thread: Tom St Denis: "Re: How about MD5(NewHash(DATA))?"
- Reply: Tom St Denis: "Re: How about MD5(NewHash(DATA))?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]