On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 05:21:47PM -0500, R0b0t1 wrote: > I would like to present my suggestions: > > SHA512, (RIPEMD160 | WHIRLPOOL | BLAKE2B), (SHA3_512 | BLAKE2B); > > or more definitively: > > SHA512, RIPEMD160, BLAKE2B. Please do NOT reintroduce RIPEMD160. It was one of the older Portage hashes prior to implementation of GLEP059, and was removed because it was shown to fall to parts of the same attacks at MD4/MD5 by Wang's paper in 2004.
Wang, X. et al. (2004). "Collisions for Hash Functions MD4, MD5, HAVAL-128 and RIPEMD", rump session, CRYPTO 2004, Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2004/199, first version (August 16, 2004), second version (August 17, 2004). Available online from: http://eprint.iacr.org/2004/199.pdf -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Asst. Treasurer E-Mail : robb...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85 GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
