Aren't CHKs already using SHA? In any case, most crypotographers seem to be shying away from MD5 more and more. I know SHA was developed by a three-letter agency, and is therefore the spawn of Satan, but it also works pretty well.
On Sat, 2003-01-18 at 15:50, Gianni Johansson wrote: > I am beginning to think that using CHKs for SplitFile checksums isn't a good > idea. > > If we use something that is widely deployed like MD5, then SplitFile client > authors can check the checksum themselves using their local system library, > without having to do an FCP request. > > I think insertion/retrieval client authors will be annoyed if we make them > send their entire file *over the wire* just to get a checksum CHK. Think > ISOs..... > > Would there be any objections to using MD5? Is there a cannonical GPL'd java > implementation? > > If we go this route I will add an MD5 FCP command. > > Also, I want to add an optional Client field to InfoPart for the insertion > client name. This will make bug hunting somewhat easier. Any objections? > > > --gj > > _______________________________________________ > devl mailing list > devl at freenetproject.org > http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 240 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20030118/2ec1c9f4/attachment.pgp>
