[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: MD5 versus SHA

To: touch@isi.edu
Subject: Re: MD5 versus SHA
From: James M Galvin <galvin@tis.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 09:27:19 -0500
Cc: ipsec@ans.net, burt@rsa.com
In-Reply-To: 's message of Thu, 30 Mar 1995 08:49:05 EST. <v01510100aba01f4f1d5c@[128.29.140.100]>
Reply-To: James M Galvin <galvin@tis.com>

	>However, the choice of MD5 for SNMP did not include performance
	>considerations.

In fact, this is exactly why we chose it.  I should know.  I was chair
fo the SNMP Security Working Group and I'm co-author of the security
documents.

Originally, we chose MD4, precisely because of its performance.
However, Rivest/RSADSI was quick to point out that the techniques used
in MD4 were "cutting edge" for hash algorithms and he was concerned
about its adoption before it had a chance to be properly scrutinized
(viz the recent observation about "patterns" in the second and third
rounds of its four rounds).

Thus was born MD5, an algorithm designed to be "fast" using techniques
generally considered "secure".

I'm sure Burt will let us know if I'm misrepresented Rivest/RSADSI's
position.

Jim

Prev by Date: Re: IPv6 Security Last Call Initial Questions
Next by Date: Re: MD5 versus SHA
Prev by thread: Re: MD5 versus SHA
Next by thread: Re: MD5 versus SHA
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread