From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6124E1F5FB for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 16:31:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751584AbdB0Qbu (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:31:50 -0500 Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk ([212.13.197.229]:41499 "EHLO chiark.greenend.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751444AbdB0Qbt (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:31:49 -0500 Received: by chiark.greenend.org.uk (Debian Exim 4.84_2 #1) with local (return-path ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk) id 1ciNRe-0006Gf-TL; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 15:42:39 +0000 From: Ian Jackson MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <22708.18670.790503.11385@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 15:42:38 +0000 To: Markus Trippelsdorf Cc: Jeff King , =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C6var_Arnfj=F6r=F0?= Bjarmason , Linus Torvalds , "brian m. carlson" , Jason Cooper , ankostis , Junio C Hamano , Git Mailing List , Stefan Beller , David Lang , Joey Hess Subject: Re: Why BLAKE2? Newsgroups: chiark.mail.linux-rutgers.git In-Reply-To: <20170227143747.GB297@x4> References: <20170226001607.GH11350@io.lakedaemon.net> <20170226173810.fp2tqikrm4nzu4uk@genre.crustytoothpaste.net> <20170226215220.jckz6yzgben4zbyz@sigill.intra.peff.net> <22708.8913.864049.452252@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <20170227143747.GB297@x4> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.4.1 (i586-pc-linux-gnu) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Markus Trippelsdorf writes ("Re: Why BLAKE2?"): > On 2017.02.27 at 13:00 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > For brevity I will write `SHA' for hashing with SHA-1, using current > > unqualified object names, and `BLAKE' for hasing with BLAKE2b, using > > H object names. > > Why do you choose BLAKE2? SHA-2 is generally considered still fine and > would be the obvious choice. And if you want to be adventurous then > SHA-3 (Keccak) would be the next logical candidate. I don't have a strong opinion. Keccak would be fine too. We should probably avoid SHA-2. The main point of my posting was not to argue in favour of a particular hash function :-). Ian. -- Ian Jackson These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.