RIPEMD-160 vs SHA-256

Question

Can anyone shed some light into SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160, which algorithm is normally faster and what are the performance and space comparisons, if any? By space comparisons I don't mean 160 bits and 256 bits, but what are the collisions frequency, difference in space requirements in production env. and time to calculate both. Is RIPEMD-160 a requirement for European countries? Any additional information, that would be helpful in deciding.

score 1 · Answer 1 · answered Sep 10 '09 at 11:21

As for SHA-256 there are no known collisions. I believe that while some advances have been made in generating collisions in SHA-1 faster than brute force, that those are still not practical and certainly not applicable for SHA-256.

I'm not very familiar with RIPEMD-160 so I cannot say much about it.

score 1 · Answer 2 · edited Jan 22 '12 at 17:56

1

RIPMD-160 can be used to any message size while SHA is limited to 2^64-1. and RIPMD-160 takes 160 steps during the process whereas SHA takes only 80. as I think RIPMD-160 is better.

edited Jan 22 '12 at 17:56

Elmo

6,409
16
72
140

answered Jan 22 '11 at 04:05

new coder

313
2
24

3

Round count doesn't indicate "better". If anything you could say that as SHA256's digest size is greater than RIPEMD-160's it *may* indicate a higher resilience to collisions. – blowdart Jan 04 '12 at 01:32

score 1 · Answer 3 · edited Jan 04 '12 at 01:27

1

Is RIPEMD-160 a requirement for European countries?

No.

edited Jan 04 '12 at 01:27

一二三

21,059
11
65
74

answered Jun 04 '11 at 13:03

Ole Tange

31,768
5
86
104

RIPEMD-160 vs SHA-256

3 Answers3