Security Basics mailing list archives
Re: Hashing Functions
From: Julien Gremillot <julien.gremillot () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 22:49:54 +0100
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:21:04 -0800, Steven DeFord <security.willworker () gmail com> wrote:
I know SHA-1 has been broken. What does this mean for SHA-n (for n <> 1)? Are they significantly different algorithms, or something similar but with longer key length?
SHA-256, SHA-384 and SHA-512 seems to out-of-range for cryptanalists, at least for the moment. The fact is that they were recently designed (published by NIST when AES 128, 192 and 256 keys became widely used, as they make it "easier" to use), so there is (nearly) nothing published about them. So, for the moment at least, no problem about using SHA-n (n>1). NIST was planning (2004/08) to move to SHA-256 or 512 step by step, finishing in 2010. Seems like they'll have to move faster. -- Julien Gremillot
Current thread:
- Hashing Functions Steven DeFord (Mar 24)
- Re: Hashing Functions Micheal Espinola Jr (Mar 28)
- Re: Hashing Functions Steven DeFord (Mar 29)
- Re: Hashing Functions Steven DeFord (Mar 29)
- RE: Hashing Functions Micheal Espinola Jr (Mar 29)
- Re: Hashing Functions Steven DeFord (Mar 29)
- Re: Hashing Functions Micheal Espinola Jr (Mar 28)
- Re: Hashing Functions Julien Gremillot (Mar 28)