3 ms·
> strong cryptographic checksums They needn't even be strong, right? Even a weak checksum on a data set of this size is basically collision-proof, no?
by jMyles 10y ago
> strong cryptographic checksums
They needn't even be strong, right? Even a weak checksum on a data set of this size is basically collision-proof, no?
- niftich 10y agoIt absolutely needs to be a strong cryptographic hash, because you want to protect against both deliberate tampering and accidental modification. Any other function, whether non-cryptographic, too short, broken or having known weaknesses, while perhaps suitable to detect accidental corruption, will not protect against the former. For example, SHA-384, or SHA-3 are great choices.
- jMyles 10y agoGotcha. TIL.
- Dylan16807 10y agoThough this isn't a case that needs to be append-proof, so SHA-256 is fine.