30 Nov
2012
30 Nov
'12
8:05 a.m.
Even further than that, I think I'm saying that I would be inclined to disagree that SHA256 is a mistaken naming. What source do you have that says the name "SHA2-256" is the right name? From the sources I quoted, including FIPS 180-4, the name is "SHA256". I suggest, as a general
Err, I meant "SHA-256", not "SHA256", of course.
/Simon