Valerie Aurora has a nicer presentation at http://valerieaurora.org/hash.html with timelines and some humour as to how various groups react.

The HTTP response headers suggest that the page was last modified on 2009-09-30. Since then, SHA-3 (Keccak) has been finalized.

Be that as it may, I'm curious about the recommendation to use WHIRLPOOL. If anyone knows why this algorithm is supposed to be better than, let's say, SHA-512, I would appreciate an explanation. Is it because of some intrinsic strengh of the algorithm? Is it because one of the authors is Vincent Rijmen of AES fame? Is it because NESSIE is more trustworthy than NSA/NIST? Or is is simply because no one has found a way to break WHIRLPOOL yet?

In case you couldn’t tell from the old-school theme, this web page hasn’t been updated since late 2008 (2008.11.28).

> this web page hasn't been updated since late 2008

Which is here really important since there was a lot of crypto community work on crypto hash functions since. All the really big work from there

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIST_hash_function_competition

is missing from the title page. Unless you're interested in the history of crypto hashes, you shouldn't care too much about that page.

The title should include "cryptographic hash functions".

There are also other types of hash functions like pHash, simhash, etc.

Yup, came here to say this.

If someone knows the person who owns this, please for the love of (someone's) god get rid of the background image. I mean that with love.

I want to read it, but physically can't... My eyes aren't so good. I eventually just removed it with firefox dev tools but c'mon! That's not right.

True 90s style. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32

I remember using a Microsoft tool back in the late 90s that was outputting the same kind of "websites". Can't remember the name, it's discontinued now.

Well it's ugly, but as long as the data is right it's fine with me.

I use this as a firefox bookmarks toolbar item: javascript:void(document.body.background='')