ietf-openpgp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: ASN.1 OID for TIGER/192

2002-10-08 01:00:36

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Jon Callas wrote:
I confess I am wondering why this is needed. Five years ago, we flirted with
Tiger and Haval because you need wider hashes for better signatures.

but then HAVAL-5-160 was selected. I wonder why not 256..

192
bits is a bit dodgy because it only gets you an effective strength of 96
bits (over 80 bits for SHA-1).

Today, we have all the wide SHAs in the
suite, which balance with symmetric ciphers up to 256 bits of key size.
Adding in TIGER/192 now seems like too little, too late. In 1998, this would
have been great. In 2002 (pushing 2003), it's at best a yawn.

In short, here's a pragmatic question I have: if I were making a signature
today, and I thought that SHA-1 weren't big enough, why would I want to use
TIGER/192 over SHA-{256|384|512}?

hmm..
it's faster (but it's weak argument)

Without a good answer to that question, I don't see why it should be there.
I'm even slightly sympathetic to people who think it and HAVAL should be
removed. They've both been overtaken by events.
    Jon

or replaced with HAVAL-5-256. I agree there is no need for 3rd 160bit hash,
but maybe alternate 256bit one...

__
Disastry  http://disastry.dhs.org/
http://disastry.dhs.org/pgp
 ^----PGP 2.6.3ia-multi06 (supports IDEA, CAST5, BLOWFISH, TWOFISH,
      AES, 3DES ciphers and MD5, SHA1, RIPEMD160, SHA2 hashes)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Netscape PGP half-Plugin 0.15 by Disastry / PGPsdk v1.7.1

iQA/AwUBPaJzFzBaTVEuJQxkEQMzOACgo12QO17DjHe5xf4JnGK84AOl4KIAmQEy
92QuFIOzJpsHV96BPBTgwpL9
=Q2X9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>