Fri, 14 Apr 2000 02:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, Werner Koch wrote:
> Most banks here in Germany prefer RIPEMD160 over SHA1; I don't know
> why ;-)
Ah, politics. I love the fact that practically all of the AES candidates
have non-US cryptographers working on them... :)
Regardless of who developed SHA-1, it is the opinion of numerous
well-respected cryptographers both in the USA and abroad that it is sound,
and that DSS is correct in requiring it.
An aside: those mysterious S-Box values in DES turned out to be not a back
door placed by No Such Agency, but instead a clever construction to defend
against differential cryptanalysis. When the NSA does things, they
generally do them well... DES is cryptographically sound; 56 bit is just
too damn small now.
SHA-1 is far less controversial than the DES S-Boxes. RIPEMD160 could be
just as good, but I trust SHA-1 with DSS more simply based on the
collective opinion of the industry experts.
System Administrator | "All of the chaos
Technology Consultant | Makes perfect sense..."
icq.. 10735603 |
pgp.. finger://ns.quickie.net/rabbi | --Joe Diffie
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: OpenPGP Encrypted Email Preferred.
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----