Hi Wei, In the end you are probably correct. The strings to be hashed a very small (relatively speaking).
Jeff On 6/8/07, Wei Dai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not very familiar with using a truncated hash as an "anonymizing" > function, but I'd suggest not bothering with MD5. Just use SHA-512, or Tiger > if you really need the extra speed. The latest release of Crypto++ made > these algorithms much faster on typical x86 platforms. See > http://www.cryptopp.com/benchmarks.html. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeffrey Walton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Crypto++ Users" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 12:22 PM > Subject: Truncated Hash and Algorithm Choice > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > The latest NIST recommendation for hashing is SHA-2. However, when > > using a Truncated Hash as an 'Anonymizing' function, could one use MD5 > > instead? Intuition tells me yes. > > > > Jeff > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ Users" Google Group. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at http://www.cryptopp.com. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
