3 ms·
That was the name of the standard, for which they had to pick a "Secure Hash Algorithm". And it's normal to have to update standards over time, regardless of th
by GTP 4y ago
That was the name of the standard, for which they had to pick a "Secure Hash Algorithm". And it's normal to have to update standards over time, regardless of the name. Which name would you have suggested for a standard defining a secure hash function? Usually it's better to not use fantasy names for standards, and "A Hash Function That Is Secure Now But Maybe Not Anymore In 10 Years" it's a bit too verbose in my opinion.
- itsTyrion 4y agoExactly. Look at video codecs. H.264 is named AVC - Advanced Video Codec. now we have VP9, HEVC(H.265), AV1 and VVC(H.266) being better. Or AAC - Advanced Audio Codec. Fast forward a few years, Opus came out and you can reduce the bitrate by another 30-50% with similar performance
- lapetitejort 4y agoThe same concept applies to telescopes. Every year a "Ridiculously Huge Telescope" gets announced. If I named them I'd start small: "Decently Sized Telescope"; "Mildly Safe Hashing Algorithm".
- Dylan16807 4y agoHuge Telescope 1. Huge Telescope 2. Huge Telescope 3. If we do the same thing as the hash names, I think it's fine. "SHA-1", specifically with the "1", doesn't cause problems.
- dolni 4y agoChange "Secure" for "FIPS" and you have a decent name. FHA-1 -- FIPS hash algorithm, version 1.
- GTP 4y agoYes, this could have worked. But unfortunately it's too late now: changing the name of the standard now would create confusion as well.