Re^2: Would Like Recommendation for an SHA256 module

Yeah, just go ahead and cut corners. I mean it's just like nobody would ever need more than two digits to represent a year . . .

If it was existing code, sure it's not worth ripping out everything to change. However given that it's new code, go ahead and start correctly. Use Digest and you won't even need more than a configuration change in 17 months when SPECTRE breaks SHA-256 with the quantum computer they stole from the NSA and you have to go to SHA-1024.

Comment on Re^2: Would Like Recommendation for an SHA256 module

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Would Like Recommendation for an SHA256 module by rodion (Chaplain) on Aug 01, 2006 at 16:19 UTC
If it's new code, I certainly agree, go with what's current and flexible. On the other hand, if the OP's (TheEnigma's) statement I've got it working, using MD5 means that it's working in production, and switching would mean changeover, debugging and testing, then you have to weigh that cost against the risk of continuing with MD5, which apears minimal if, as the OP says, there are no secrets and no money involved.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: Would Like Recommendation for an SHA256 module
by rodion (Chaplain) on Aug 01, 2006 at 16:19 UTC

I've got it working, using MD5

[reply]