|
|
|
|
|
|
by karaziox
3307 days ago
|
|
|
But NIST didn't make that clear. The thing they made clear is in fact the exact opposite and the OP mentions it. They called it SHA-3, saying to the world that this was a better SHA-2. If they wanted to make clear that SHA-3 wasn't to replace SHA-2, they should really have named it something else. Now everybody not knowledgeable to the details will sadly assume the 3 is better than the 2. |
|
|
People who aren't sweating the details aren't the intended audience for NIST.