Template talk:Comparison of SHA functions

table has no explanation of the colors it uses
The table has no explanation of the colors it uses. Can someone please fix this? term: telephony — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.118.68 (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

talk:192.2.198.23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.118.68 (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

SHA-1 Collision
Marc Stevens et al. note that they located a collision in the SHA-1 compression function, but did not find the external input necessary to produce the internal state necessary (and evidently does not plan to, as he has defended his thesis now). Should the table reflect the same status as it would if a full collision was found? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.69.197 (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think the SHA-1 status should be changed in the table until actual colliding inputs are found. It's still possible that there's an undiscovered or unpublished mistake in Stevens's work, or maybe practical constraints make the attack infeasible. Publishing of actual colliding inputs is the ultimate verification, this is the same criteria/color scheme I used in the hash function security summary article. -- intgr [talk] 13:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

"Capacity against length extension attacks" column in the table
Who wrote this? Who or what provided the values for the bits of "capacity against length extension attacks"?

Can someone provide references for these, please.

2A02:C7D:1AAD:BB00:CD0:93D0:5A62:E2DF (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

cpb
The "tool tip" explaining cpb does not explain cpb.