pidgin: 922d886b: Update this comment. We talked about us...

[markdoliner at pidgin.im]

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Revision: 922d886b1f8807184579604499e4d2b4ad0fe3e5
Ancestor: e1e1720893fdd056f2d3a0c1b059c6338a57110a
Author: markdoliner at pidgin.im
Date: 2009-07-07T07:09:07
Branch: im.pidgin.pidgin
URL: http://d.pidgin.im/viewmtn/revision/info/922d886b1f8807184579604499e4d2b4ad0fe3e5

Modified files:
        libpurple/util.c

ChangeLog: 

Update this comment.  We talked about using CRC32 on the devel list
last week and decided that we want to stick with SHA1.
* We might want to move to something more secure in the future
* It would be nice if we could give client's the ability to specify the
  hash function that gets used

-------------- next part --------------
============================================================
--- libpurple/util.c	ff376676398e1d9e6157a03e9192f5f460c86ba3
+++ libpurple/util.c	b1d6a0bd8339bec1811ef67a7705e85c7f56564d
@@ -2967,10 +2967,10 @@ purple_util_get_image_extension(gconstpo
 }
 
 /*
- * TODO: Consider using something faster than SHA-1, such as MD5, MD4
- *       or CRC32.  Are there security implications to that?  Would
- *       probably be a good idea to benchmark some algorithms with
- *       3KB-10KB chunks of data (typical buddy icon sizes).
+ * We thought about using non-cryptographic hashes like CRC32 here.
+ * They would be faster, but we think using something more secure is
+ * important, so that it is more difficult for someone to maliciously
+ * replace one buddy's icon with something else.
  */
 char *
 purple_util_get_image_checksum(gconstpointer image_data, size_t image_len)