Kevin Kammer wrote: > Unless there is some inescapable constraint on the size of one's > signature, I am hard pressed to think of a reason for using SHA224 when > SHA256 is available.
Conformance with corporate IT policies. Many corporate IT policies are drafted by people who don't really understand the underlying technologies. They see the NIST drafts and say "ah, 224-bit hashes are to be used with DSA-2048," and proceed to require SHA224 to be used with DSA-2048. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
