News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Maybe we shouldn't skip SHA-3. Parent comment

Re:Maybe we shouldn't skip SHA-3 by sp332 on Friday June 02, 2017 @10:26AM (#14470110)
We should definitely rename it, because until yesterday I didn't know that "SHA-512/256" was an actual thing. I thought it was just shorthand referring to both SHA-512 and SHA-256.

Edit: this comment got 7 upvotes before the editing timeout, so I'm not the only one either.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Maybe we shouldn't skip SHA-3 by ben0x539 on Friday June 02, 2017 @11:36AM (#14470658)
Having read the article and the comments above yours, and being generally aware that there's some truncation thing related to SHA-256 and SHA-512 somewhere, it still took me until your comment to catch onto that.
[ Parent | on HN ]