On 18/09/11 23:38, Roan Kattouw wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Anthonywikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Did you try any of the non-secure hash functions? If you're going to
go with MD5, might as well go with the significantly faster CRC-64.
I included MD5 because MediaWiki currently uses
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
If collision attacks really matter we should use SHA-1.
If collision attacks really matter you should use, at least, SHA-256, no?
However, do
any of the proposed use cases care about whether someone might
intentionally
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Roan Kattouw roan.katt...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Now I don't know how important the CPU differences in calculating the
two versions would be. If they're significant enough, then fine, use
MD5, but
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Did you try any of the non-secure hash functions? If you're going to
go with MD5, might as well go with the significantly faster CRC-64.
I included MD5 because MediaWiki currently uses it for some things,
and SHA-1 because it
