I agree with Jeff; MD5-MAC & MD4 might be worthwhile to keep for another rev or two.
Jeffrey Walton wrote:
Hi Wei, The only suspect I see that raises a flag is: MD5-MAC In case someone is using Crypto++ to interface with a legacy system. It might be nice to keep MD4 in (even though it is not Cryptographically secure) for legacy stuff also. Jeff On 12/29/06, Wei Dai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am considering removing the following algorithms from the next > release of > Crypto++, due to a combination of lack of usage, better alternatives, > and > cost of maintenance. If anyone wants to see them kept in, please speak > up. > > HAVAL > MD2 > MD4 > XORMAC > MD5-MAC > > > > >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crypto++ Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cryptopp-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
