SHA-3 is KECCAK

[Kagamin]

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.