Re: Slow but secure has function for small data

"Krystian Matusiewicz" <myname@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:45da3a47$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I would be cautious about Joseph's proposal
(at least in theory) if I needed a reduction to a really well studied
problem that is believed to be hard.

I would actually refer back to a statement I made a few weeks ago regarding
using SHA-256 or higher due to cryptographic cleanliness. Basically I said
that the lesser hash functions are not shown significantly weakened in a
similar environment, but using the newer hases is better because they are
likely to be more resilient to future attacks.

The iterated HMAC suggestion remains, but I would recommend using a more
recent hash function.
Joe


.

Quantcast