5 ms·
Absolutely, you are correct - the papers does not describe SHA256 as broken, but it is one step of many on the path for SHA256 to become broken in the future -
by alophawen 5y ago
Absolutely, you are correct - the papers does not describe SHA256 as broken, but it is one step of many on the path for SHA256 to become broken in the future - which is in reply to your earlier comment:
> You're proposing to add extra complexity for some hypothetical scenario that is unlikely to happen
- ttybird2 5y agoI do not believe that the practical demonstration of a sha1 collision by google contributed at all to any potential future break of sha256.
- SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago> but it is one step of many on the path for SHA256 to become broken in the future I disagree. It's evidence that the given path is not fruitful for breaking SHA256 in the future. When numerous researchers worldwide have attacked a function, and only broken X out of N rounds, for X << N, and future research hasn't been able to improve X for years, that's pretty good evidence that the technique used isn't going to continue to apply for more rounds. The existence of a multi-billion dollar bug bounty for breaking SHA256 (Bitcoin) that's gone unclaimed for years is further evidence that it's quite strong.