Subject: Re: muhah
To: Bill Studenmund <>
From: Andrew Brown <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 04/10/2001 00:44:40
>As I understand it, the *BSD md5(1) program set prior art for how md5
>hashes look. It's a shame that openssl didn't follow the same format. But
>then openssl went off and added sha1 and r{,ipe}md160 support. Why does it
>make sense to not follow their lead? At least in how we name the hashes..
>(RIPEMD160 vs RMD160).

openssl calls it rmd160, as does openbsd (who had rmd160 stuff, afaik,
before freebsd, but a quick look there lost me since their source tree
is weird when i'm tired).  the library routines are also called
rmd160foo().  i don't see how we're different...

as for the output format, i followed the

	HASHNAME (filename) = b5bb9d8014a0f9b1d61e21e796d78...

format since it looked nice.  and was easy to pervert.

>And since the support for these hashes hasn't been in md5/cksum(1) for a
>week, changing it shouldn't be too big a deal.

that's also true.  someone has already suggested that md2 and md4
simply be removed since they're "broken".
