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

Jamie Lokier
2003-08-14T21:36:11Z

David Wagner wrote:
> 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.

I still do not see why either F or G are any more secure than SHA.

F, G and SHA are all supposedly strong hash functions, and I don't see
why the postulated folks capable of getting useful information about
the inputs to SHA would have any more difficulty getting useful
information about the inputs to F or G.

Unless we're postulating that SHA is deliberately weak, so that the
designers have a back door, that is not present in F or G.

Could some explain, please?

-- Jamie