I'm going to guess the latter, but just wanted to ask here.
I want to have a relatively short signature, and my goal is to take a substring of the resulting hash.
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
5
-
$\begingroup$ Duplicate of HMAC-SHA1 vs HMAC-SHA256 and HMAC-SHA1 vs HMAC-SHA256 for data storage. In sum, use HMAC-SHA-256 because SHA-1 shouldn't be used for any new protocols, but HMAC-SHA-1 isn't broken. $\endgroup$– samuel-lucas6Nov 27, 2022 at 8:18
-
$\begingroup$ HMAC doesn't depend on collision resistance of the hash used, so HMAC-SHA1 isn't insecure. However, as a general practice, it's always better to HMAC-SHA256 for newer implementations $\endgroup$– user93353Nov 27, 2022 at 10:30
-
1$\begingroup$ @samuel-lucas6 Neither directly addresses the substring issue, although it is mentioned in one of the comments in the first question. That said, taking a substring from a well distributed randomized value doesn't alter the strength of the algorithm. Uh, maybe that's the answer :) $\endgroup$– Maarten Bodewes ♦Nov 27, 2022 at 16:39
-
$\begingroup$ Are you asking about HMAC-SHA1 with a 160-bit tag vs plain SHA-256 truncated to 160 bits? $\endgroup$– forest ♦Nov 27, 2022 at 22:47
-
$\begingroup$ yes that's what I meant $\endgroup$– Gregory MagarshakNov 28, 2022 at 3:12
Add a comment
|