Talk:Key derivation function
![]() | Cryptography: Computer science Start‑class | ||||||||||||
|
![]() | Computing: Security C‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||||||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Key derivation function article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Please - No MD5
I agree the following is a correct statement:
Modern password-based key derivation functions, such as PBKDF2 (specified in RFC 2898), use a cryptographic hash, such as MD5 or SHA1, more salt (e.g. 64 bits) and a high iteration count (often 1000 or more).
However, I feel mentioning MD5 is an implicit approval of the algorithm. MD5 was broken some time ago, and its often available for compatibility only. For example, MD5 is banned from US Federal use except in some compatibility cases such as use in SSL/TLS as part of pseudorandom number generator component. Additionally, others, such as the author of md5crypt, has stated the algorithm is broken, should not be used, and the program is at End of Life.
Would it be possible to yank references to MD5 that sound like an endorsement? In its place, mention Whirlpool, which is NESSIE and ISO/IEC approved. More importantly, the SHA-2 family and Whirlpool's security properties are in tact.
- Start-Class Cryptography articles
- Unknown-importance Cryptography articles
- Start-Class Computer science articles
- Unknown-importance Computer science articles
- WikiProject Computer science articles
- WikiProject Cryptography articles
- C-Class Computing articles
- Low-importance Computing articles
- C-Class Computer security articles
- Unknown-importance Computer security articles
- C-Class Computer security articles of Unknown-importance
- All Computer security articles
- All Computing articles