Sorry, why is RIPEMD-160 deprecated? I've been unable to find any supporting information as to why.
Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions
11–20 of 56 posts
Re: Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions
#12For more information on the 'weakened' state of SHA-2, see http://eprint.iacr.org/2004/207
(Full text PDF: http://eprint.iacr.org/2004/207.pdf)
Re: Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions
#13It'd be nice to have whirlpool in the list - I remember when it was seen as the great new hope for a good hash, but I haven't heard anything about it in recent years.
Re: Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions
#14I guess 2004 was a crazy year for cryptography.
Re: Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions
#15I guess 2004 was a crazy year for cryptography.
It's the year 64-bit CPUs became consumer commodoties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit_computing#64-bit_process...
Re: Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions
#16I think SHA-2 should be "minor weakness discovered" (if not outright "unbroken"), not "weakened". At the onset of the SHA-3 competition, everyone was nervous about SHA-2: it appeared as though a good attack was inevitable, what with the cryptanalytic attacks on SHA-1. But as the competition went on, things got calmer. The attacks against SHA-2 that were so expected simply weren't coming[1]. And so now the status quo…
BLAKE2 is a very good alternative if you want software performance: https://blake2.net/ . Just stop what you're doing and look at scrypt, bcrypt or even PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA512 if you're thinking something that involves the words "passwords" and "fast hash function." ( http://throwingfire.com/storing-passwords-securely/#notpassw... )
+1 for bcrypt and related solutions.
http://yorickpeterse.com/articles/use-bcrypt-fool/ http://codahale.com/how-to-safely-store-a-password/
Re: Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions
#17I guess 2004 was a crazy year for cryptography.
Indeed it was. Wang's breakthrough work [1,2] broke most of the common hash functions at the time, and later also SHA-1 [3]. The SHA-3 competition was motivated by this streak of new successful attacks.
[1] http://eprint.iacr.org/2004/199
[2] http://www.iacr.org/cryptodb/archive/2005/EUROCRYPT/2868/286...
Re: Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions
#18Use of SHA-1 for digital signature generation has been deprecated by NIST since 2011. It's disallowed after 2013-- which is important for software aiming for government use.
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-131A/sp800-13...
Re: Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions
#19Sorry, why is RIPEMD-160 deprecated? I've been unable to find any supporting information as to why.
it appeared after sha1, receives less attention than sha1, and is slower than sha1... so why use it at all?
Re: Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions
#20Sorry, why is RIPEMD-160 deprecated? I've been unable to find any supporting information as to why.
it appeared after sha1, receives less attention than sha1, and is slower than sha1... so why use it at all?
Many use it because it wasn't developed by the NSA. It is a default in TrueCrypt, for example.