-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Qed wrote: > Which solution would be safer?
Assuming an idealized hash function, they're of equal strength. If each bit of the hash algorithm is effectively random with a 50/50 distribution, then a truncated hash is just as good as a full-size hash. In the real world, hashes aren't idealized and this may not be good advice. Just another instance where theory and practice are subtly different from each other... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJEyyv1AAoJELcA9IL+r4EJb1kH/iQ3F668BwcDhpWtByx9yyPP loR+1FuZaC7P4F+yP/Gk4gk3t2kA56sEWXOlrNQ4exwRdg7/pO0mquERgiiPvZ/B cjzOkeMWKc5yc0w9YBNdbB9xgnioZ7QfTVvUzgi+IYWfLyTbkTygN6+aH2tOL71R /YsKYcsYqoX2/bbizpcAHt9V86VBrPHOw7l0K8e2UofLP8xzyUhI72l3rZgonjbh uKGnPr/7zuL5EHawe3FcOjyWo2aaQ6VsXgWsPm+4I6PKPko7NSE9keGIuzs7Cy2A aUrDOVgE0++TkA7DkDSakM2CbeS4iXIMx7veSRaKYOwp5ldeo0xlBz1zPCBZdt0= =zJvR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
