Il giorno 09/mar/2013, alle ore 19:09, Christian Heimes
ha scritto:
> Am 09.03.2013 02:06, schrieb Giovanni Bajo:
>> It's a good practice to avoid crypto algorithms whose foundations are known
>> to be broken. This is one of those cases. If we ever touch code that uses
>> MD5, we should drop i
Am 09.03.2013 02:06, schrieb Giovanni Bajo:
> It's a good practice to avoid crypto algorithms whose foundations are known
> to be broken. This is one of those cases. If we ever touch code that uses
> MD5, we should drop it immediately. There is no reason to keep it and wait
> for someone to rele
On Mar 9, 2013, at 9:56 AM, "M.-A. Lemburg" wrote:
> [Discussion about MD5]
>
> I think there's not much point in discussing MD5 in this context.
> When creating new designs, you should always use the current
> best and most widely deployed algorithm, IMO.
>
> For Python, this is the SHA-2 fami
[Discussion about MD5]
I think there's not much point in discussing MD5 in this context.
When creating new designs, you should always use the current
best and most widely deployed algorithm, IMO.
For Python, this is the SHA-2 family at the moment, since SHA-3 is
not supported by Python's hashlib.
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 5:22 PM, holger krekel wrote:
> I think this (or a variation/refinements of this scheme) would offer a
> smooth transition where nobody needs to get upset and people would clearly
> see we are doing everything we can to make it easy to transition.
It sounds good to me, too
