On 18/09/11 23:38, Roan Kattouw wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Anthony wrote:
>> Did you try any of the non-secure hash functions? If you're going to
>> go with MD5, might as well go with the significantly faster CRC-64.
>>
> I included MD5 because MediaWiki currently uses it for some
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Anthony wrote:
> Did you try any of the non-secure hash functions? If you're going to
> go with MD5, might as well go with the significantly faster CRC-64.
>
I included MD5 because MediaWiki currently uses it for some things,
and SHA-1 because it had been suggest
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> Now I don't know how important the CPU differences in calculating the
>> two versions would be. If they're significant enough, then fine, use
>> MD5, but make sure there are warnings all ov
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Anthony wrote:
> Now I don't know how important the CPU differences in calculating the
> two versions would be. If they're significant enough, then fine, use
> MD5, but make sure there are warnings all over the place about its
> use.
>
I ran some benchmarks on on
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:55 AM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> If collision attacks really matter we should use SHA-1.
If collision attacks really matter you should use, at least, SHA-256, no?
> However, do
> any of the proposed use cases care about whether someone might
> intentionally inject a collisi
