On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 12:42:42PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 02:18:00PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > My understanding was that there aren't other hash functions that've had > > remotely similar levels of cryptographic analysis to md5 and sha. IIRC, > > the elliptic curve cryptography stuff was supposed to be similarly neat, > > until people started analysing it seriously, at which point it broke. > To the best of my knowledge, elliptic curve cryptography isn't any more > broken than RSA or ElGamal is. Oh god, how embarassing. I'm confusing elliptic curves and knapsacks, my bad. Knapsack cryptograph's "provably" secure (in that a general solution is NP), and practically insecure (in that it's hard to find instances that are reliably hard enough, at least without obscene key sizes). But hey, SHA-something, Tiger, or whatever; it's well past time to choose one, get a /usr/bin/<...> binary we can use, and replace md5 with it. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature