From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 19:44:57 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: Re: SHA-2
In-Reply-To: <DLCCvL.482@news2.new-york.net>
Message-ID: <199601271126.GAA15032@thor.cs.umass.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Rob writes:
> I don't know if the revision is official or proposed. I first heard
> about it in a post to alt.security (I saved the message somewhere)
> which contained ref's in the federal register.  I've seen other
> implementations that make the same fix.
> 
> The difference that when the expansion function is performed, it rolls
> the dword 1 bit left before putting it in the W[] array.

Any particular reason someone called this SHA-2 ?  It sounds a whole lot like
the revision of the original SHA, called SHA-1, that came out quite a while
ago. (FIPS 180-1)  This is rather old hat unless they're making a _second_
revision to the standard, in which case I expect there would have been much
more noise made about it.

Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBMQoL0inaAKQPVHDZAQGzmQf9FLDvD9TmpMfgDDac0xHsJX8RspJ/tIfS
yMU6eoVSclD1hdQzMxkSc1ffPxvrLvCzILeFZVzZ/4duAp2wn1q4GPnQRvjXh98V
GXVhHusiyB4RFWOsUewXt7r4aYtPeIZI51WEnRMXanCjcVU2ChukiruLAEQqC1JS
nInfVMNjNkb1IHrltnwznnfqY91xBRzrABI1s8dRFXU/jUAI+jGr3ThfMipowvwh
egbBkrhQJjlS3J9f2XL0rte0NDO5WxL5MrdR/N54ODI9ktrhWXWrAeK/NbA4tm6I
uLrHq8FiI6HhqbrO7cEMMU2cuODv3Yu/0Z/MyD03C/uO1D0m1m1VRg==
=zI2p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----