David Gwynne wrote: > secondly, im always wary of truncating hash output in case it throws away > some of the guarantees it's supposed to provide. if you cut sha512 output > down to an 8th of its size, is it 8 times easier to calculate a collision, or > more than 8 times easier? sha384 being a truncation of sha512 kind of argues > against this though.
on this point, all the bits are supposed to be equally good. you can take as many as you want, and just like that, you have an X bit hash.
