Dear Michael, On 4/26/05, Michael Silk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As a hash function with 'security' of 2 ** 80, it is completely > broken. The security is reduced to 2 ** 69. Even though it's still > alot of operations, the function is definately broken as it's actual > security is less then specified (less then that required for a > 'birthday attack').
I suppose we have different understanding of what "completely broken" means: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/cryptanalysis_o.html Regards, Edgar
