1996-07-01 - Re: rsync and md4 (my final comments)

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>
To: “David F. Ogren” <ogren@cris.com>
Message Hash: 860523b3b528eff07502f06c3e310e1c58659164d874eea7618d8da7ef483469
Message ID: <199607011647.MAA21252@jekyll.piermont.com>
Reply To: <199607011536.LAA26258@darius.cris.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-07-01 22:07:38 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 06:07:38 +0800

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 06:07:38 +0800
To: "David F. Ogren" <ogren@cris.com>
Subject: Re: rsync and md4 (my final comments)
In-Reply-To: <199607011536.LAA26258@darius.cris.com>
Message-ID: <199607011647.MAA21252@jekyll.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



"David F. Ogren" writes:
> 1. I think that you will agree that MD4 will work fine for Mr. Tridgell's 
> program, irregardless of your criticisms.  He specifically stated that he 
> was not concerned about intentional collisions, only random ones.

If one is concerned about speed and doesn't need a cryptographic
checksum, a long CRC will be far, far faster and will do fine.

As soon as one starts talking about using cryptographic checksums,
there is no point in using them unless one really wants the
cryptographic protection.

Perry





Thread