News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Cryptographic Right Answers by JoachimS on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @09:18AM (#16754369)
I find the recommendations for HMAC to be somewhat imprecise. Latacora states for symmetric signtures to use "HMAC". But then under "Avoid" for the same category lists HMAC-MD5, HMAC-SHA1.

RFC 2014 defines HMAC with different hash functions such as HMAC-MD5 and HMAC-SHA1. All are valid HMACs. There are other versions of HMAC with for example SHA-256, SHA-224, SHA-512/256 etc defined.

Re:Cryptographic Right Answers by lvh on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @12:07PM (#16756063)
That's a good point; as I recall reading it it was supposed to say HMAC-SHA256. But, to be clear: HMAC-MD5 isn't really busted, I just would prefer not to see it in new code.
Re:Cryptographic Right Answers by JoachimS on Friday April 06, 2018 @07:31AM (#16772413)
Exactly. We want to move away from md5 (and SHA-1) and has been trying to do that for many years now. So we should not use it _even if_ it is ok in a specific construction. It adds yet another dependency that makes it harder to remove md5.