Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make cryptoapi non-optional?

[David Wagner]

Val Henson  wrote:
>Throwing away 80 bits of the 160 bit output is much better
>than folding the two halves together.  In all the cases we've
>discussed where folding might improve matters, throwing away half the
>output would be even better.

I don't see where you are getting this from.  Define
  F(x) = first80bits(SHA(x))
  G(x) = first80bits(SHA(x)) xor last80bits(SHA(x)).
What makes you think that F is a better (or worse) hash function than G?

I think there is little basis for discriminating between them.
If SHA is cryptographically secure, both F and G are fine.
If SHA is insecure, then all bets are off, and both F and G might be weak.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/