Re: Re-secured Algorithm?

From: David Wagner (daw_at_taverner.cs.berkeley.edu)
Date: 08/19/05 

Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:31:49 +0000 (UTC)

Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:
>It was my understanding that SHA-2 was identical to SHA-1, except for
>coming in 256, 38something, and 512 bit lengths. Please, correct me if
>I'm wrong.

An apple is just like an orange, except that it comes in apple form
factor. I don't know quite what you mean. Yes, SHA-2 is a hash function,
just like SHA-1. Yes, its name shares 3 letters with SHA-1. But SHA-2
is a different algorithm.

>No, we don't have to panic quite yet. But it is time to start looking for
>alternatives and implementing them now, rather than when it is down to a
>reasonable crack-time.

Agreed. Definitely.