-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 Suppose you need a 160 bit digest. You can choose RIPEMD160/SHA1 or a truncated version of a bigger one (e.g.: SHA2 family). Which solution would be safer? Is a digest algo designed for a given length stronger than a truncated longer one?
I googled, but I found only http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/10/nist_hash_works_3.html I know that sci.crypt would be a better place to ask this question, but I don't like it. - -- Q.E.D. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is Strength ICQ UIN: 301825501 OpenPGP key ID: 0x58D14EB3 Key fingerprint: 00B9 3E17 630F F2A7 FF96 DA6B AEE0 EC27 58D1 4EB3 Check fingerprints before trusting a key! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEyymYH+Dh0Dl5XacRA/VHAJ4kT/TuLjcgREwV8ysi0/rc+Jd7PgCfeUHk yLz05vW8h3udm7WvtQ8o+mo= =XcHw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
