assurance - RE: [Assurance] Assurance and SHA-1/SHA-2

Subject: Assurance

List archive

RE: [Assurance] Assurance and SHA-1/SHA-2

From: Eric Goodman <>
To: "" <>
Subject: RE: [Assurance] Assurance and SHA-1/SHA-2
Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 15:50:14 +0000
Accept-language: en-US

Thanks Tom!

--- Eric

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
>
> [
> ]
> On Behalf Of Tom Barton
> Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 6:01 AM
> To:
>
> Subject: Re: [Assurance] Assurance and SHA-1/SHA-2
>
> Eric,
>
> Section 9 of SP800-131A clearly states that SHA-1 remains acceptable
> for all non-digital signature generation algorithms.
>
> Tom
>
> On 5/2/2014 6:37 PM, Eric Goodman wrote:
> > [And to anyone still reading, I'm still interested in whether SSHA
> > passwords in LDAP userPassword fields would still count as
> > Silver-compliant.] --- Eric

[Assurance] Assurance and SHA-1/SHA-2, Eric Goodman, 05/01/2014
- Re: [Assurance] Assurance and SHA-1/SHA-2, Tom Scavo, 05/01/2014
  - RE: [Assurance] Assurance and SHA-1/SHA-2, Eric Goodman, 05/02/2014
    - Re: [Assurance] Assurance and SHA-1/SHA-2, Tom Scavo, 05/02/2014
      - RE: [Assurance] Assurance and SHA-1/SHA-2, Eric Goodman, 05/02/2014
        
        Re: [Assurance] Assurance and SHA-1/SHA-2, Tom Barton, 05/03/2014
        
        RE: [Assurance] Assurance and SHA-1/SHA-2, Eric Goodman, 05/03/2014
        
        Re: [Assurance] Assurance and SHA-1/SHA-2, Tom Scavo, 05/09/2014
        Re: [Assurance] Assurance and SHA-1/SHA-2, Cantor, Scott, 05/09/2014
        Re: [Assurance] Assurance and SHA-1/SHA-2, Tom Scavo, 05/09/2014
        Re: [Assurance] Assurance and SHA-1/SHA-2, Cantor, Scott, 05/09/2014
        Re: [Assurance] Assurance and SHA-1/SHA-2, Tom Scavo, 05/09/2014
        Re: [Assurance] Assurance and SHA-1/SHA-2, Cantor, Scott, 05/10/2014
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: [Assurance] Assurance and SHA-1/SHA-2, Joe St Sauver, 05/02/2014

List archive

RE: [Assurance] Assurance and SHA-1/SHA-2