Talk:SHA-1

From Rosetta Code
Revision as of 21:26, 19 January 2012 by rosettacode>Dkf (→‎Warning highlighting: Done)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Dkf in topic Warning highlighting

Implementations separated

We might want to set this up like MD5 and MD5/Implementation just to keep things consistent. --Mwn3d 21:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some implementations of MD5 are still on MD5 and not on MD5/Implementation. If someone creates SHA-1/Implementation, please move the Ruby implementation from here to there. If I later create RIPEMD-160, SHA-256, or so on, I might not immediately create /Implementation pages. --Kernigh 19:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warning highlighting

That highlighted warning should probably go into a centered infobox to make it more visible. –Donal Fellows 10:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What kind of warning is appropriate for SHA-1? Factor's documentation for SHA says, "SHA-1 is considered insecure, while SHA-2 It is generally considered to be pretty strong." OpenBSD sha(1) gives no warning at all, though OpenBSD md5(1) gives a warning and recommends sha256. --Kernigh 19:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think the issue is with the content of the warning. The issue is with how it looks. --Mwn3d 20:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly that. –Donal Fellows 20:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just moved the warning and put it in a box. How's that look? --Mwn3d 20:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.) –Donal Fellows 21:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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 Could do with a link to the weaknesses in MD5, but that's not a high priority as it is well known to be be superseded. –Donal Fellows 21:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]