Anonymous user
Talk:SHA-1: Difference between revisions
→Warning highlighting: Done
(→Warning highlighting: The text is probably fine it just needs to look different) |
(→Warning highlighting: Done) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 10:
: What kind of warning is appropriate for SHA-1? [http://docs.factorcode.org/ Factor's documentation] for [http://docs.factorcode.org/content/article-checksums.sha.html SHA] says, "SHA-1 is considered insecure, while SHA-2 It is generally considered to be pretty strong." OpenBSD [http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=sha1&apropos=0&sektion=1&manpath=OpenBSD+5.0&arch=i386&format=html sha(1)] gives no warning at all, though OpenBSD [http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=md5&apropos=0&sektion=1&manpath=OpenBSD+5.0&arch=i386&format=html md5(1)] gives a warning and recommends sha256. --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 19:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
:: I don't think the issue is with the content of the warning. The issue is with how it looks. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 20:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
::: Exactly that. –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 20:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
:I just moved the warning and put it in a box. How's that look? --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 20:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
:: Fine. It draws the eye in; it's the sort of thing needed. (We probably ought to make sure that [[MD5]] is similarly marked; I'll check that in a few seconds.) –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 21:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
::: Both now follow the same pattern. Could do with a link to the weaknesses in MD5, but that's not a high priority as it is well known to be be superseded. –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 21:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
| |||