Re: RFC v3: Another proposed hash function transition plan

From: Gilles Van Assche <gilles.vanassche@st.com>
Date: Sep 19, 2017, 16:45 UTC
Message-ID: <59C149A3.6080506@st.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1.1709182340350.219280@virtualbox>

Hi Johannes,

Thanks for your feedback.

On 19/09/17 00:16, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

>>> SHA-256 got much more cryptanalysis than SHA3-256 […]. 
>>
>> I do not think this is true. 
>
> Please read what I said again: SHA-256 got much more cryptanalysis
> than SHA3-256.

Indeed. What I meant is that SHA3-256 got at least as much cryptanalysis as SHA-256. :-)

Show 6 quoted lines

> I never said that SHA3-256 got little cryptanalysis. Personally, I
> think that SHA3-256 got a ton more cryptanalysis than SHA-1, and that
> SHA-256 *still* got more cryptanalysis. But my opinion does not count,
> really. However, the two experts I pestered with questions over
> questions left me with that strong impression, and their opinion does
> count.

OK, I respect your opinion and that of your two experts. Yet, the "much more" part of your statement, in particular, is something that may require a bit more explanations.

Kind regards, Gilles