On 10/12/10 10:57 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > On 12/9/2010 6:49 PM, Ben McGinnes wrote: >> Just to clarify, does this mean that SHA-256 or 512 (or whatever) >> truncated to 160-bits prevent the potential collision attacks that >> might be able to be launched against SHA-1? > > Correct. Truncating a hash does not introduce any flaws in the > algorithm. If you truncate a bad hash, you now have a truncated bad > hash. Truncate a good hash and you have a truncated good hash. :)
Excellent. Thanks. Regards, Ben
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
