On Tuesday, March 17, 2020 9:17:09 PM CET, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 2020-03-17 00:03:03 [+0100], Dimitrios Apostolou via rsync wrote:
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 10:34:53 PM CET, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
via rsync wrote:
I'm still not sure if rsync requires a cryptographic hash
On 2020-03-17 00:03:03 [+0100], Dimitrios Apostolou via rsync wrote:
> On Thursday, February 20, 2020 10:34:53 PM CET, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> via rsync wrote:
> >
> > I'm still not sure if rsync requires a cryptographic hash _or_ if a
> > strong hash like xxHash64 would be just fine for the
On Thursday, February 20, 2020 10:34:53 PM CET, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
via rsync wrote:
I'm still not sure if rsync requires a cryptographic hash _or_ if a
strong hash like xxHash64 would be just fine for the job.
I'm fairly sure the hash should *not* be easy to spoof, so I'd say a
On 2020-02-20 20:06:39 [+0100], Markus Ueberall wrote:
> On 2020-02-09 23:19, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > [...]
> > My primar motivation to use SHA1 for checksumming (by default) instead
> > of MD5 is not the additional security bits but performance. On a decent
> > x86 box the SHA1
On 2020-02-09 23:19, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
[...]
My primar motivation to use SHA1 for checksumming (by default) instead
of MD5 is not the additional security bits but performance. On a decent
x86 box the SHA1 performance is almost the same as MD5's but with
acceleration it outperforms
