On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 02:13:07PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Yup. I actually was leaning toward saying "all of them are OK in > practice, so the person who is actually spear-heading the work gets > to choose", but if we picked SHA-256 now, that would not be a choice > that Brian has to later justify for choosing against everybody > else's wishes, which makes it the best choice ;-) This looks like a rough consensus. And fortunately, I was going to pick SHA-256 and implemented it over the weekend. Things I thought about in this regard: * When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256 implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration. * If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS), we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them alone could break the security when we could just depend on one. I'll be sending out some patches, probably in a few days, with SHA-256 and some test fixes. -- brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
