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=-3.2 required=3.0 tests=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 4FA122047F for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:45:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751416AbdISQo7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2017 12:44:59 -0400 Received: from mx07-00178001.pphosted.com ([62.209.51.94]:32903 "EHLO mx07-00178001.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751284AbdISQo6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2017 12:44:58 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0046037.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx07-.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v8JGi71O004716; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 18:44:28 +0200 Received: from beta.dmz-eu.st.com (beta.dmz-eu.st.com [164.129.1.35]) by mx07-00178001.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2d0sqsupwc-1 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 19 Sep 2017 18:44:28 +0200 Received: from zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (zeta.dmz-eu.st.com [164.129.230.9]) by beta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 02F0631; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:44:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from Webmail-eu.st.com (sfhdag6node2.st.com [10.75.127.17]) by zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id B997B2BC3; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:44:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [10.137.2.67] (10.75.127.48) by SFHDAG6NODE2.st.com (10.75.127.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Tue, 19 Sep 2017 18:44:25 +0200 Subject: Re: RFC v3: Another proposed hash function transition plan To: Johannes Schindelin References: <20170304011251.GA26789@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> <20170307001709.GC26789@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> <20170911185913.GA5869@google.com> <59BFB95D.1030903@st.com> CC: Linus Torvalds , demerphq , Brandon Williams , Junio C Hamano , Jonathan Nieder , Git Mailing List , Stefan Beller , Jonathan Tan , Jeff King , David Lang , "brian m. carlson" , Keccak Team From: Gilles Van Assche X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <59C149A3.6080506@st.com> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 18:45:23 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.75.127.48] X-ClientProxiedBy: SFHDAG8NODE3.st.com (10.75.127.24) To SFHDAG6NODE2.st.com (10.75.127.17) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-09-19_07:,, signatures=0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi Johannes, Thanks for your feedback. On 19/09/17 00:16, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >>> SHA-256 got much more cryptanalysis than SHA3-256 […]. >> >> I do not think this is true. > > Please read what I said again: SHA-256 got much more cryptanalysis > than SHA3-256. Indeed. What I meant is that SHA3-256 got at least as much cryptanalysis as SHA-256. :-) > I never said that SHA3-256 got little cryptanalysis. Personally, I > think that SHA3-256 got a ton more cryptanalysis than SHA-1, and that > SHA-256 *still* got more cryptanalysis. But my opinion does not count, > really. However, the two experts I pestered with questions over > questions left me with that strong impression, and their opinion does > count. OK, I respect your opinion and that of your two experts. Yet, the "much more" part of your statement, in particular, is something that may require a bit more explanations. Kind regards, Gilles