On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 12:12:44 -0500 R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: > That is precisely why I didn't suggest it be used on its own (see note > about extant use of MD5), and why I gave alternatives. If it is > desired that the hashes be computed quickly then weaker hashes will > need to be used. One usually can't have both security and speed.
You can have that. Blake2 is faster than any broken legacy hash. And ripemd isn't particularly fast > People are discussing collision resistance, but no one here appears to > be trained in cryptography. For the record, I'd claim I am. -- Hanno Böck https://hboeck.de/ mail/jabber: ha...@hboeck.de GPG: FE73757FA60E4E21B937579FA5880072BBB51E42
