Steven M. Bellovin wrote: >We all understand the need to move to better hash algorithms than SHA1. >At a minimum, people should be switching to SHA256/384/512; arguably, >Whirlpool is the right way to go. The problem is how to get there from >here. > > I've been rather continually pinging people, asking them for an explanation as to the design decisions of Whirlpool (namely -- it's similar but noticably not identical to AES/Rijndael, and isn't just a straightforward expansion of the block size up to 512 bits). I'm not saying anything bad about Whirlpool, but I get alot of people approaching me about the hash and I don't really know what to tell them.
--Dan --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]