-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 11.36 AM 7/1/96 -0400, David F. Ogren wrote:

2. (quoted from Mr. Perry in an article entitled "MD5 breaks, etc.")

...

checked. However, the result is widely known. MD5 is *not* something that should be trusted going forward, and I hope the next version of PGP uses SHA-1.

As I understand the current plans, PGP 3.0 _will_ incorporate a SHA option. In fact, I believe that there may already be "bootleg" versions that incorporate SHA.

What is the difference between SHA and SHA-1? Is this algorithm subject to the same licensing as MD5? Could someone point me to such a bootleg version for DOS, please? Thanks. =============================================================================== David Rosoff (nihongo o sukoshi dekiru) ----------------> drosoff@arc.unm.edu For PGP key 0xD37692F9, finger drosoff@acoma.arc.unm.edu 0xD37692F9 Key fingerprint = 25 7D AA 01 85 41 43 89 50 5A 33 76 F1 F1 99 67 Non-technical beginner's guide to PGP ---> http://www.arc.unm.edu/~drosoff/pgp/ Anonymous ok, PGP ok. If it's not PGP-signed, you know that I didn't write it. === === === === === === === === === === === === === === === === === === === === "Truth is stranger than fiction, especially when truth is being defined by the O.J. Simpson Defense Team." -Dave Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMdiLyBguzHDTdpL5AQHACgP/dmJJ6aQ0ZVlHN3WcAsPkaGoAypU/iCz4 F8HSK6nxbmG+pBd5+82Flzqpquy23Wfp+uk2l+CIv7oygoOMXVvadRLTQKXZEe+h 8/rk0pLATszwLakwa427P5xgGs4mfwvKjzBi0LpEIu1qkUmWYGQphl7KPAumdLc+ +3Wpc0INmHY= =qXUq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----