Re: Security Review Summary of NIST SHA-3 Round 1
- From: Maaartin <grajcar1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:14:45 -0800 (PST)
Thought some might find this interesting.
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/22/1830247
Thx. The article is fine, but the comments below the article I
recommend to nobody. My opinions on it (just in case somebody
cares:D):
- The reference implementations are quite bad and very unreadable.
- The errors in them are irrelevant to the quality of the algorithm.
- But they are relevant to the quality of future implementations.
- So the inventors should really hire a better programmer.
Maybe it would be better to use other language for this, I don't know;
but just seeing some parts of the code makes me sick.
There's a funny thing in the article: "The MD6 team has doubled the
size of the vulnerable buffer, which eliminated the risk.". This seems
to me to be an obvious non-sense, the solution must be to copy half as
much data. (Maybe I misunderstood something but than I'm not the only
one).
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Security Review Summary of NIST SHA-3 Round 1
- From: WTShaw
- Re: Security Review Summary of NIST SHA-3 Round 1
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Secret sharing algorithm with chosen keys
- Next by Date: Re: Secret sharing algorithm with chosen keys
- Previous by thread: Security Review Summary of NIST SHA-3 Round 1
- Next by thread: Re: Security Review Summary of NIST SHA-3 Round 1
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
