Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Comparison of cryptographic hash functions

Table Parameters wrong

Round parameters were wrong, I corrected some. I suggest there are more wrong. Comparison_of_cryptographic_hash_functions#Parameters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4CA0:4103:3:F94D:F82B:17C9:4611 (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patent information

It would be very interesting if someone would take the time to gather license/patent information about the algorithms :) -LM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.57.46 (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious if there is some way to either split a few pages or some method to keep pages with the same content up to date. For instance there is at least: Cryptographic_hash_function Comparison_of_cryptographic_hash_functions Hash_function_security_summary

They aren't always all in sync with each other and that's not to mention the pages for each hash function. Thoughts? Quelrod (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced round versions

Putting attack on the complete algorithm and attack on reduced rounds versions in the same table is completely unreadable, mixing practical weaknesses and irrelevant to practical security ones... — Preceding unsigned comment added by JidGom (talk • contribs) 11:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the attacks on reduced step versions of RIPE and SHA1 should be listed separately in the table of best attacks. 24 step SHA1 is NOT SHA1 and the strength of 24 step SHA1 is not something that many readers are going to be able to use as an indicator of the strength of actual SHA1. 108.7.229.221 (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RIPEMD

From a causality point of view - RIPEMD can not be derived from RIPEMD-160, since the latter was in fact developed after the first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.206.174.166 (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more info on Whirlpool

Dearth of info on Whirlpool to other function comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.211.226 (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum input length

Theoretically there is no size limit for this algorithms. They work with stream and insert at end to stream data int64 of stream length. If stream length is greater than 2^64-1 bytes they add 2^64 remainder of actual length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.169.234.6 (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Include Tiny Encryption Algorithm (TEA)?

I'm not a hash function expert, but was led here when investigating the Tiny Encryption Algorithm. Apparently it was used (and hacked) in the MS Xbox. Is there a reason it was not included? Nerfer (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nerfer: No, TEA is a cipher, not a hash function. Any block cipher can be adapted to be a hash function, but in the case of TEA, that produces a weak hash. The usage of TEA in Xbox was a made-up amateur hash, not a real one. -- intgr [talk] 06:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Comparison of cryptographic hash functions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Comparison of cryptographic hash functions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need South Korea's LSH

It is part of South Korea's standard portfolio. LSH: A New Fast Secure Hash Function Family.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

224bd635147ee534b5806a0910ef234c 1.53.243.126 (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_cryptographic_hash_functions