On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 12:13:49PM -0400, David Shaw wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 07:26:18PM +0930, Alphax wrote:
> > Qed wrote:
> > > 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 wo
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 07:26:18PM +0930, Alphax wrote:
> Qed wrote:
> > 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
Qed wrote:
> 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?
>
Since you're asking about 160-bit
-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
-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 googl
