-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 30/06/2004, at 5:30 PM, A.M. Kuchling wrote: > On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 10:15:24AM +0100, Michael Hudson wrote: >> Nevertheless, am I right to still believe that there are no known >> distinct strings which even MD5 to the same hash? > > Correct. > > One significant reason for the larger SHAs to generate 256-bit keys > for AES encryption; it's better to have a larger hash than to take a > smaller one and replicate portions of it. But, given that we're not > going to include AES in the Python stdlib, people will have to > download a separate library anyway. This library could include SHA256, > so this application isn't a compelling reason to add SHA256 to the > stdlib. It would be different if there were existing protocols that > need the larger hash, such as HTTP digest auth; are there any? People use sha as a one way hash for storing passwords and credit card details. The extra bits will make the paranoid a bit happier (and the less paranoid are still using md5). - -- Stuart Bishop <stuart at stuartbishop.net> http://www.stuartbishop.net/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Darwin) iD8DBQFA4uAvAfqZj7rGN0oRAoejAJ4wpOQx2f3+yvSFqgKPW+S3h9YmVQCggy5h 7Ydvtp/Rdj19KT/sFOtxXM8= =/Fa4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4