multiple subkeys and key transition
ben at adversary.org
Fri Dec 10 01:45:02 CET 2010
On 10/12/10 11:16 AM, David Shaw wrote:
> Yes, but at the risk of pedantry:
I'd rather the accuracy of pedantry than be mired in uffish thought.
> The attacks against SHA-1 haven't been extended to the SHA-2 family
> yet. By truncating a SHA-2 to 160 bits, you're creating a
> non-broken (for now) 160-bit hash. Think of it as a non-broken
> SHA-1: it's theoretically as strong as SHA-1 once was thought to be,
> but not stronger.
> (i.e. it's a great SHA-1 alternative, but it's not as strong as a
> full-sized SHA-2).
Alright, that's pretty clear, thanks.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Gnupg-users