On 10/27/2013 10:04 AM, MFPA wrote: > Which raises the question in my mind: was SHA really flawed, or was it > advantageous to NSA's purposes to have people use SHA-1 instead?
It's amazing what you can discover by checking Wikipedia. SHA was deeply flawed. The civilian cryptanalytic community broke SHA wide open. We don't know if the flaws the civilian cryptanalytic community discovered are the same ones as what the NSA discovered that caused them to urge SHA be replaced with SHA-1; however, SHA being a flawed algorithm is beyond question. In the future, let's please not engage in paranoid speculation without doing a little research first. There is already plenty enough fear, uncertainty and doubt in the air regarding the NSA without us contributing needlessly to it. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
