Subject: [Cfrg] Re: [saag] Bad day at the hash function factory

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 11:54:21 -0400

In message <[email-masked]
om>, "Hughes, James P" writes:

>Thanks Steve [Bellovin] for the "ad on" statement. I would like to agree and
>even suggest that it goes without saying that you may want future new
>applications of HMAC to pass over MD5 (for SHA-x where x>0) if they have the
>option. 
>

That statement is, in fact, not obvious -- there are respected members 
of the community (like Hugo) who feel that MD5 is fine with HMAC.  I'm 
not saying you're wrong -- but it doesn't "go without saying".

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

_______________________________________________
Cfrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Sep 2004 19:50:31 -0000

A note to everyone using HMAC: Modern polynomial-evaluation MACs (such
as GCM MAC) offer strong security guarantees (they're provably as secure
as AES) and are faster than HMAC-SHA1. Some of them (not GCM MAC) are
even faster than HMAC-MD5.

---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago