Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 20:27:28 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: Arthur Mesh <arthurmesh@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org, RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> Subject: Re: svn commit: r239569 - head/etc/rc.d Message-ID: <86txvbovlb.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20120906181922.GA89120@x96.org> (Arthur Mesh's message of "Thu, 6 Sep 2012 11:19:22 -0700") References: <201208221843.q7MIhLU4077951@svn.freebsd.org> <5043DBAF.40506@FreeBSD.org> <20120903005708.7082f230@gumby.homeunix.com> <20120906171824.GC14757@dragon.NUXI.org> <86392vqc86.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20120906181922.GA89120@x96.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Arthur Mesh <arthurmesh@gmail.com> writes: > "Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav" <des@des.no> writes: > > Is there a reason to choose sha256 over a weaker, faster hash? > Given the fact that yarrow uses sha256 internally, I don't think it's a > sound idea to add weaker links to the chain. What can possibly be weaker than discarding most of the entropy provided by the administrator? David had a genuine concern about performance when stuffing large amounts of data into /dev/random. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86txvbovlb.fsf>