Talk:Cryptographic hash function

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cryptographic hash function article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Do not attack other users For disputes, please see our guideline	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Hash Function Lounge -

The Hash function lounge – a list of hash functions and known attacks - this reference is no longer valid.— This unsigned comment was added by 205.228.82.171 (talk • changes) at 10:13, 30 October 2015‎.

Thank you for noticing. Luckily, I was able to find a link for where it had moved. It is updated. All the best, Fylbecatulous talk 13:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first characteristic listed ("It is extremely easy to calculate a hash for any given data") is not necessarily true. Some hash functions are deliberately designed to be expensive to compute, to thwart attackers attempting a brute force search for a collision. scrypt is one such algorithm. Kjkrum (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]