On 08/27/2011 09:05 PM, Niels Möller wrote:
Are any other variants of ripemd in use? (According to wikipedia, there's original ripemd, ripemd-128, ripend-160, ripemd-256 and ripemd-320, but I have no idea which of them are in use today or are likely to be used in the future).
ripemd and ripemd-128 are considered broken. I don't know if ripemd-x, x>=256 have been used anywhere. Having the SHA-3 winner instead would be a much better choice.
regards, Nikos
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmav@gnutls.org writes:
ripemd and ripemd-128 are considered broken. I don't know if ripemd-x, x>=256 have been used anywhere. Having the SHA-3 winner instead would be a much better choice.
Thanks. The related naming question is: Should the header file be nettle/ripend160.h (declaring the single algorithm ripemd160) or nettle/ripemd.h (declaring all supported hash functions in the family)?
Current include file naming is not 100% consistent, with sha.h, md4.h and md5.h, and luckily it doesn't have to. Question is, what makes the most sense for ripemd?
Regards, /Niels
On 08/27/2011 11:24 PM, Niels Möller wrote:
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulosnmav@gnutls.org writes:
ripemd and ripemd-128 are considered broken. I don't know if ripemd-x, x>=256 have been used anywhere. Having the SHA-3 winner instead would be a much better choice.
Thanks. The related naming question is: Should the header file be nettle/ripend160.h (declaring the single algorithm ripemd160) or nettle/ripemd.h (declaring all supported hash functions in the family)?
I'd use ripemd160.h to avoid confusion with the broken ripemd.
regards, Nikos
nettle-bugs@lists.lysator.liu.se
-
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos -
nisse＠lysator.liu.se