Time for a second thought about SDLH

ralf at senderek.com ralf at senderek.com
Mon Mar 21 15:10:47 EST 2005

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:

> "Dominated"?  No, of course not.  But a hash function based on discrete
> log will be slow enough that no one will use it.

This is simply not true, because we are _not always_ going to sign
megabytes, and SDLH is more than fast enough for sensibly crafted texts.
At the end of the day we might consider the option that we don't need
a single hash function for everything.

There is a place for a high end hash function.

I insist on a second thought.

Kind regards

    Ralf Senderek

* Ralf Senderek  <ralf at senderek.com> http://senderek.com*  What is privacy  *
* Sandstr. 60   D-41849 Wassenberg  +49 2432-3960       *      without      *
* PGP: AB 2C 85 AB DB D3 10 E7  CD A4 F8 AC 52 FC A9 ED *    Pure Crypto?   *

The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com

More information about the cryptography mailing list