I'm in favour of truncating SHA-512 to 200 bits, though this is not a
strong preference.
-Thijs
(As a general principle, I like the idea of not exposing more than half of
a hash's internal state to the wild. A remnant of ye olden days where it
would've made length extension attacks that much more difficult.)
--
Thijs van Dijk
6A94 F9A2 DFE5 40E3 067E C282 2AFE 9EFA 718B 6165
On 16 March 2017 at 12:25, Werner Koch <wk(_at_)gnupg(_dot_)org> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:17, wk(_at_)gnupg(_dot_)org said:
What do others think:
- Use SHA-256 and truncated to 200 bits
- Use SHA-512 and truncated to 200 bits
- Anything else
No opinions?
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
--
Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp