SHA-3 is KECCAK
Kagamin
spam at here.lot
Sat Jan 18 05:04:55 PST 2014
On Friday, 17 January 2014 at 15:00:38 UTC, Chris Cain wrote:
> On Friday, 17 January 2014 at 14:06:57 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> Doesn't TCP take care of that?
>
> For a packet, yes. In general you can assume that if a transfer
> completes under TCP then it is very likely correct. That's the
> way TCP is designed. If you want to check the entire file at
> the end, MD5 could theoretically be done as a sanity check. I'd
> still use SHA-2 (in the form of a digital signature, obviously)
> minimally if your intention is to ensure it hasn't been
> tampered with
It's hard and expensive to use digital signatures in public
projects and doesn't protect from tampering. In fact, direct
tampering in such setup is cheaper than a collision attack, not
even speaking, that a collision attack doesn't work here, only a
preimage attack.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list