Re: Why BLAKE2?
- From
- Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
- Date
- Feb 27, 2017, 15:42 UTC
- Message-ID
- <22708.18670.790503.11385@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
- In-Reply-To
- <20170227143747.GB297@x4>
Markus Trippelsdorf writes ("Re: Why BLAKE2?"):Show 8 quoted lines
> On 2017.02.27 at 13:00 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > For brevity I will write `SHA' for hashing with SHA-1, using current > > unqualified object names, and `BLAKE' for hasing with BLAKE2b, using > > H<hex> object names. > > Why do you choose BLAKE2? SHA-2 is generally considered still fine and > would be the obvious choice. And if you want to be adventurous then > SHA-3 (Keccak) would be the next logical candidate.
I don't have a strong opinion. Keccak would be fine too. We should probably avoid SHA-2.
The main point of my posting was not to argue in favour of a particular hash function :-).
Ian.
-- Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.