Generating a new key

Robert J. Hansen rjh at
Mon Mar 22 00:06:13 CET 2010

On 3/21/10 5:59 PM, Paul Richard Ramer wrote:
> I believe that you meant SHA-1 and not SHA-128, because there isn't a
> hash called SHA-128.

There is, although the name is unofficial and not widely used.

When people migrated from MD5 to SHA-1, there were a lot of protocols
that only had 128 bits reserved for the hash.  A common hack was to use
SHA-1 and drop 32 bits.

RIPEMD-128 is RIPEMD-160 with 32 bits dropped, and RIPEMD-128 is an
officially recognized name.  A fair number of people applied the same
reasoning to SHA-1, and thus SHA-128 was born.

Unlike RIPEMD-128, SHA-128 was never official.  The name never took off,
although the hack was pretty commonly used.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5598 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20100321/21134ddf/attachment.bin>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list