On 22 April 2012 07:00, David Adamson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4/19/12, Marsh Ray <[email protected]> wrote: > > 5. It is not just my opinion that NIST made a mistake by not staying > on the initial goal SHA-3 to be SIGNIFICANTLY more efficient than > SHA-2. However, I think that actually that mistake will be used by > some of the organizations that I have mentioned in order to raise > their international reputation and some of them will push for a hash > standard that industry will prefer more than SHA-2 and SHA-3. > Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought NISTs most important requirement on their Federal Register submission was that SHA-3 be secure. cf. section 4.A "The security provided by an algorithm is the most important factor in an evaluation." All the finalists are arguably more secure than SHA-2. So they *did* in fact stay with their original goal. Regards, Peter
_______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list [email protected] http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
