wt., 13 kwi 2021 o 18:05 Mattias Andrée <maand...@kth.se> napisał(a): > > On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:57:39 +0200 > Sagar Acharya <sagaracha...@tutanota.com> wrote: > > > Sure, any good signature. SHA512 is stronger than SHA1, MD5 and SHA256. It > > shouldn't take a second more than others. Why use a weaker checksum? > > SHA512 is actually more than twice as fast as SHA256 on 64-bit machines. > (I don't know which is stronger).
> I see no point in having checksums at all, except for detecting bitrot. BLAKE3 is one the best way to do it: https://github.com/BLAKE3-team/BLAKE3 even blake2 is better then SHA256 or SHA512. Plus my _OLD_ one-file implementation of blake2b (license the same as the original) and no support for keys. Daniel > Signatures are of course good. > > > Thanking you > > Sagar Acharya > > https://designman.org > > > > > > > > 13 Apr 2021, 20:15 by daniel.cegie...@gmail.com: > > > > > How/where SHA512 is better than SHA256 or SHA1? I don't see any added > > > value in this. If someone breaks into your server and replace files, > > > may also regenerate check sums (SHA256/512 or SHA3, scrypt etc.). The > > > use of MD5 will be equally (un)safe as SHA512 :) > > > > > > A better solution is e.g. signify from OpenBSD or GnuPG. > > > > > > https://man.openbsd.org/signify > > > > > > Daniel > > > > > > wt., 13 kwi 2021 o 13:36 Sagar Acharya <sagaracha...@tutanota.com> > > > napisał(a): > > > > > >> > > >> Can we have SHA512 checksums and sig files for the release gzips of > > >> suckless software? > > >> > > >> Thanking you > > >> Sagar Acharya > > >> https://designman.org > > >> > > > >
blake2.c
Description: Binary data
