[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SHA-2

To: [email protected] (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: Re: SHA-2
From: [email protected] (Futplex)
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 06:26:35 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Mutatis Mutantdis" at Jan 17, 96 07:59:37 pm
Reply-To: [email protected] (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Sender: [email protected]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Rob writes:
> I don't know if the revision is official or proposed. I first heard
> about it in a post to alt.security (I saved the message somewhere)
> which contained ref's in the federal register.  I've seen other
> implementations that make the same fix.
> 
> The difference that when the expansion function is performed, it rolls
> the dword 1 bit left before putting it in the W[] array.

Any particular reason someone called this SHA-2 ?  It sounds a whole lot like
the revision of the original SHA, called SHA-1, that came out quite a while
ago. (FIPS 180-1)  This is rather old hat unless they're making a _second_
revision to the standard, in which case I expect there would have been much
more noise made about it.

Futplex <[email protected]>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBMQoL0inaAKQPVHDZAQGzmQf9FLDvD9TmpMfgDDac0xHsJX8RspJ/tIfS
yMU6eoVSclD1hdQzMxkSc1ffPxvrLvCzILeFZVzZ/4duAp2wn1q4GPnQRvjXh98V
GXVhHusiyB4RFWOsUewXt7r4aYtPeIZI51WEnRMXanCjcVU2ChukiruLAEQqC1JS
nInfVMNjNkb1IHrltnwznnfqY91xBRzrABI1s8dRFXU/jUAI+jGr3ThfMipowvwh
egbBkrhQJjlS3J9f2XL0rte0NDO5WxL5MrdR/N54ODI9ktrhWXWrAeK/NbA4tm6I
uLrHq8FiI6HhqbrO7cEMMU2cuODv3Yu/0Z/MyD03C/uO1D0m1m1VRg==
=zI2p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

References:
- Re: SHA-2
  - From: [email protected] (Mutatis Mutantdis)

Prev by Date: Re: NOISE NOISE NOISE - clocks and other irrelevance
Next by Date: Re: "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail"
Prev by thread: Re: SHA-2
Next by thread: pgp broken?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread