Maybe we shouldn't skip SHA-3

Re:Maybe we shouldn't skip SHA-3 by yakult on Friday June 02, 2017 @10:42AM (#14470227)

So what's the right algorithm to use instead of md5 if I just want a fast checksum that's widely supported?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Maybe we shouldn't skip SHA-3 by snakeanus on Friday June 02, 2017 @11:12AM (#14470455)

BLAKE2b or BLAKE2bp should be a good choice for that. Or just CRC if you care only about unintentional changes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Maybe we shouldn't skip SHA-3 by svenfaw on Friday June 02, 2017 @10:48AM (#14470279)

SHA256

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Maybe we shouldn't skip SHA-3 by dom0 on Friday June 02, 2017 @12:53PM (#14471373)

If SHA-2, do use SHA-512, since we are living in a 64 bit world.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Maybe we shouldn't skip SHA-3 by JoachimS on Monday June 05, 2017 @12:45PM (#14489053)

SHA-512/256

[ Parent | on HN ]