Talk:Comparison of cryptographic hash functions

Cryptography: Computer science List‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Low-importance).

I'm curious if there is some way to either split a few pages or some method to keep pages with the same content up to date. For instance there is at least: Cryptographic_hash_function Comparison_of_cryptographic_hash_functions Hash_function_security_summary

They aren't always all in sync with each other and that's not to mention the pages for each hash function. Thoughts? Quelrod (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very interesting if someone would take the time to gather license/patent information about the algorithms :) -LM

Putting attack on the complete algorithm and attack on reduced rounds versions in the same table is completely unreadable, mixing practical weaknesses and irrelevant to practical security ones...

From a causality point of view - RIPEMD can not be derived from RIPEMD-160, since the latter was in fact developed after the first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.206.174.166 (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the attacks on reduced step versions of RIPE and SHA1 should be listed separately in the table of best attacks. 24 step SHA1 is NOT SHA1 and the strength of 24 step SHA1 is not something that many readers are going to be able to use as an indicator of the strength of actual SHA1. 108.7.229.221 (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]