Re: Added hashes.

Juuso Hukkanen <juuso_12_2003@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> You are right that is exactly the case. (Are you sure you are not an
> Asian guru.) I suspect that one day one of the hashes Whirpool or
> SHA512 will eventully fall, because the history of hashes says so. Ok,
> none of those is perfect, but let's assume one of those would fall
> sooner than the other.

You're expressing a belief that at least one of Whirlpool and SHA512
is not perfect. That's fine, there's no proof that either one is
perfect, so it's fine to assume the opposite. But next you want to
assume they are "independent", whatever that means, without proof. If
you're trying to operate by theoretical proofs of security, then
unless you have proofs otherwise, you should not only assume that the
hashes are not perfect, you should also assume they are not independent.
So, any theorems about combining independent hashes can't be applied
to SHA512 and Whirlpool.
.

Relevant Pages