3 ms·
“Everyone should switch to (in order of preference): • BLAKE2b / BLAKE2s • SHA-512/256 • …” You know, SHA-512/256 was a terrible name. For someone who’s
by anderskaseorg 7y ago
“Everyone should switch to (in order of preference):
• BLAKE2b / BLAKE2s
• SHA-512/256
• …”
You know, SHA-512/256 was a terrible name. For someone who’s not a cryptographer, it’s way too easy to confuse the single algorithm SHA-512/256, which resists length extension attacks, with the pair of algorithms SHA-512 / SHA-256, which do not.
- foobiekr 7y ago"truncated sha512" would be a much better way to talk about it.
- wiml 7y agoIt isn't exactly truncated SHA-512 — that is, you can't compute a SHA-512/256 hash by computing a SHA-512 hash and then truncating it. Although the algorithm is the same as doing that, the initial state of the hash context is different. (The same is true for SHA-224, which could be called SHA-256/224; it's a truncated SHA-256, but with a different internal state.)
- foobiekr 7y agoTrue, that’s a good point.
- mehrdadn 7y agoDamn, I knew this and I'd forgotten it. Thanks for pointing it out.
- gcb0 7y agothat just goes to show how bad the name is. It doesn't trick you until before you learn, but it keeps on giving!