On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:34:42AM +0200, Eric Deplagne wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 23:59:41 +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > > I don't know your colleagues, and they haven't commented here. One > > person that has commented here is Adam Langley. It is my impression > > (and anyone is free to correct me if I'm incorrect) that he is indeed a > > cryptographer. To quote him[0]: > > > > I think this group can safely assume that SHA-256, SHA-512, BLAKE2, > > K12, etc are all secure to the extent that I don't believe that making > > comparisons between them on that axis is meaningful. Thus I think the > > question is primarily concerned with performance and implementation > > availability. > > > > […] > > > > So, overall, none of these choices should obviously be excluded. The > > considerations at this point are not cryptographic and the tradeoff > > between implementation ease and performance is one that the git > > community would have to make. > > Am I completely out of the game, or the statement that > "the considerations at this point are not cryptographic" > is just the wrongest ? > > I mean, if that was true, would we not be sticking to SHA1 ? I snipped a portion of the context, but AGL was referring to the considerations involved in choosing from the proposed ones for NewHash. In context, he meant that the candidates for NewHash “are all secure” and are therefore a better choice than SHA-1. I think we can all agree that SHA-1 is weak and should be replaced. -- brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
