It is often worked around. But from what I understand the length extension issue was raised during the design but ignored. Hashing is not encryption but some of

It is often worked around. But from what I understand the length extension issue was raised during the design but ignored. Hashing is not encryption but some of the recommended encryption standards are so complicated that it is a risk just by itself. SHA-384 is a truncated SHA-512. From the claims of sec people it does not offer more security when it comes to length attacks. But from how the algo works I would assume that it does. Nist is also plain wrong about their calculations. Cause how long it takes to calculate a specific hash depends on the hardware available, not what theory books says. It may in practice be faster to calculate a hash with more bits.