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 masklinn on Friday June 02, 2017 @10:49AM (#14470287)
Why not recommend SHA384 which AFAIK is exactly a truncated SHA512 without the "name collision" with SHA256? Or SHA224 which is the same from SHA256?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Maybe we shouldn't skip SHA-3 by tptacek on Friday June 02, 2017 @10:52AM (#14470300)
To maximize both performance and the number of truncated bits, which is the factor mitigating length extension.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Maybe we shouldn't skip SHA-3 by masklinn on Friday June 02, 2017 @11:05AM (#14470403)
> both performance

Surely SHA384 is no slower than SHA512/256 since both need to compute a SHA512 hash before truncation?

> and the number of truncated bits, which is the factor mitigating length extension.

Is there really a meaningful difference in mitigation between truncating 25% and 50% of the original hash?

[ Parent | on HN ]