3 ms·
Actually SHA1-HMAC is fine still. Although I had this question: https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/102990/what-is-more-secure-hmac-with-sha-1-or-with-sh
by EGreg 4y ago
Actually SHA1-HMAC is fine still. Although I had this question: https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/102990/what-is-more-secure-hmac-with-sha-1-or-with-sha-256-and-take-a-substring https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/102990/what-is-mo...
- oconnore 4y agoSince I'm on a roll with truncated hashes: SHA2-512/384, and SHA2-512/256 are not vulnerable to a Merkle-Damgard length extension attack. Thus, a construct like hash(key + message) can be used similar to SHA3 [1] [1]: https://keccak.team/keccak_strengths.html https://keccak.team/keccak_strengths.html
- classichasclass 4y agoThis is worth emphasizing since HOTP (and thus TOTP) are based on it.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]