Frederik Eaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well, I guess it's only a factor of two, but there's a difference > between bugs that cause a segfault in a tool that many people use, and > bugs that might cause a new feature with 0 existing users to not be > 100% cryptographically secure.
I'm sympathetic to this argument, and in fact had toyed with the idea of using something much simpler and faster like buzhash <https://www.se.auckland.ac.nz/courses/SOFTENG250/archive/2004/lectures/hamer-5.pdf>, perhaps at the user's option. buzhash is not cryptographically secure but should work well with any data that is not designed by an attacker. For a cryptographically secure function, a good choice might be a hybrid CW/UHASH approach, as suggested by Crosby and Wallach <http://www.cs.rice.edu/~scrosby/hash/>. But all this can wait until somebody has more time.... _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
