Markus Trippelsdorf writes ("Re: Why BLAKE2?"):
> On 2017.02.27 at 13:00 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > For brevity I will write `SHA' for hashing with SHA-1, using current
> > unqualified object names, and `BLAKE' for hasing with BLAKE2b, using
> > H object names.
>
> Why do you choose BLAKE2? SHA-2 is generally considered still fine and
> would be the obvious choice. And if you want to be adventurous then
> SHA-3 (Keccak) would be the next logical candidate.
I don't have a strong opinion. Keccak would be fine too.
We should probably avoid SHA-2.
The main point of my posting was not to argue in favour of a
particular hash function :-).
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
