Re: [Cfrg] GOST algorithms descriptions

["Blumenthal, Uri" <uri at ll.mit.edu>]

Nice work with the drafts - thank you! (Some technical questions may come later.)

This CFRG discussion mentioned attacks against GOST hash (which are not applicable to SHA-2, for example). When there's no shortage of hash algorithms, why choose one that has demonstratable flaws? Only because "it's been invented here"? In the same key (no pun intended :-), why in this day and age choose a hash based on a 64-bit cipher?

I for one would like to see these issues commented on.

Thanks!


----- Original Message -----
From: cfrg-bounces at irtf.org <cfrg-bounces at irtf.org>
To: saag at ietf.org <saag at ietf.org>; cfrg at irtf.org <cfrg at irtf.org>
Sent: Sat Jun 13 04:29:07 2009
Subject: [Cfrg] GOST algorithms descriptions

Hello,

the fact that the GOST cryptography algorithms descriptions are not 
easily accessible in English was repeatedly mentioned when discussing 
related subjects.
Now, these descriptions are posted as I-Ds, we hope that will serve the 
community to get acquianted more closely with these sets of widely used 
algorithms.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dolmatov-cryptocom-gost341194-00.txt


http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dolmatov-cryptocom-gost34102001-00.txt



Comments are welcome vie e-mail or in the maillists.


dol@

_______________________________________________
Cfrg mailing list
Cfrg at irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg