On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 14:19 -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 11:10:09PM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote: > > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 01:05:41PM -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote: > > > Our past approach to cases like this has been to shovel all of > > > the data into the consensus document. But this is rather poor > > > for bandwidth. Adding a single SHA256 hash to a consensus for > > > each router increases the compressed consensus size by 47%. In > > > comparison, replacing a single SHA1 hash with a SHA256 hash for > > > each listed router increases the consensus size by only 18%. > > > > SHA256's are still huge. It's a real shame there aren't accepted hash > > functions that use only 20 bytes. > > I think we're going to have to live with this, unless we want to be > crypto-weirdos and say that our hash function is the first 20 bytes of > SHA256 or something else horribly under-analyzed like that. One option is to use SHA224, SHA256's shorter cousin. It would lower the size from 32 bytes to 28 bytes and is a part of the FIPS standard. -- Marcus Griep GPG Key ID: 0x070E3F2D —— https://torproj.xpdm.us Ακακια את.ψο´, 3°
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part