2 ms·

> SHA-2 is not broken, while SHA-1 is this kind of bare statement benefits greatly from a citation > collision resistance of many cascaded hash functions is n

> SHA-2 is not broken, while SHA-1 is this kind of bare statement benefits greatly from a citation > collision resistance of many cascaded hash functions is not much better than the maximal resistance of one hash function used in the cascade I don't think GP is suggesting including results of hashes in the contents to be hashed by subsequent hash functions, but rather calculating MD5(contents), SHA1(contents), SHA2(contents), FOO4(contents) etc, and then concatenating all the hashes together. Or am I misunderstanding and this kind of scheme is exactly the "cascading" that you're talking about ?

dchest 11y ago
> this kind of bare statement benefits greatly from a citation Seriously? > I don't think GP is suggesting including results of hashes in the contents to be hashed by subsequent hash functions, but rather calculating MD5(contents), SHA1(contents), SHA2(contents), FOO4(contents) etc, and then concatenating all the hashes together. Or am I misunderstanding and this kind of scheme is exactly the "cascading" that you're talking about ? Yes, this is cascading. See this paper: https://www.iacr.org/archive/crypto2004/31520306/multicollisions.pdf https://www.iacr.org/archive/crypto2004/31520306/multicollis...