Re: re-consideration of TIGER

[Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

* <vedaal@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> would it be reasonable to re-accept the non-sha based hashes, (e.g. TIGER)
> as a potential backup hash for implementations/users that may wish to
> begin doing so?

Unless the attack is not substantiated, wild actionism should be avoided.
Currently the attack looks like exploiting insufficient highest bit handling
of the internal state variables. This is a matter if the protocol applies a
random(!) padding directly before hashing.