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 tptacek on Friday June 02, 2017 @12:30PM (#14471158)
Additionally, the primitives used in the SHA-2 core are well-enough understood and accepted that for SHA-2 to be broken, pretty much all the hashes are going to end up broken --- is how the rest of the logic would go.

(This is, I think, JP Aumasson's argument.)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Maybe we shouldn't skip SHA-3 by dsacco on Friday June 02, 2017 @12:40PM (#14471251)
Yeah, that's Aumasson. He compared it to finding that P=NP; sure it could happen, but it probably won't, and by the time we get that far "future-proofing" suddenly ceases to be a coherent concept for a lot more than just SHA-2.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Maybe we shouldn't skip SHA-3 by pvg on Friday June 02, 2017 @03:50PM (#14472827)
I always wonder when this pops up, are there cryptographers who don't think that. Not necessarily forever but within, say, 30 years.
[ Parent | on HN ]