0

I am very much new in this cryptography section. I want to raise a question here regarding md5 hashes and whirlpool hashes. So far I have found that md5 can be broken and hence it is not safe to use. I also learned a little bit about whirlpool hashes. Now, my question is "Which one is more secured?" except knowing that md5 can be broken.

One more question, i need to know any applications that use both md5 and whirlpool hashes in their program. It would be really helpful for me if anyone can come forward to share some knowledge.

Cheers

Zawad
  • 1
  • 2
  • 1
    This question belongs to [Security.SE](http://security.stackexchange.com). – Gumbo Sep 04 '13 at 04:13
  • What aspect of a hash are you referring to as being “secured”, if not the strength against the kind of collision attacks MD5 is vulnerable to? It's true that many practical attacks come from misapplication of crypto rather than direct attack on the algo itself, but that's obviously out of scope for a comparison of two hash algos. – bobince Sep 04 '13 at 09:32
  • Both follow the same mechanism, MD5 is more robust but have a high collision rate. – Khaled.K Sep 04 '13 at 09:42
  • What could be similarities and differences between md5deep and whirlpool hashes? – Zawad Sep 10 '13 at 06:42

1 Answers1

-3

the more bits a hash contains, the more secure. MD5 is a 128-bit string, SHA-1 is a 160-bit string and Whirlpool is a 512-bit string. Based on this alone, Whirlpool is clearly superior to both SHA-1 and MD5.

zzzzhazz
  • 11
  • 1
  • 7
    and if the 512bit hash is computed 10 times faster, a 64bit hash would be more *secure* – CSᵠ Oct 15 '14 at 13:19