Security of truncated hash functions
qed at tiscali.it
Sat Jul 29 11:25:44 CEST 2006
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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
I googled, but I found only
I know that sci.crypt would be a better place to ask this question, but
I don't like it.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
ICQ UIN: 301825501
OpenPGP key ID: 0x58D14EB3
Key fingerprint: 00B9 3E17 630F F2A7 FF96 DA6B AEE0 EC27 58D1 4EB3
Check fingerprints before trusting a key!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Gnupg-users