[distcc] LZO compression

[Aaron Lehmann]

On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 08:48:35PM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> I probably said MD5 before, but actually MD4 would be a better
> solution.  It's not strong against a malicious attack, but it is very
> strong against random errors introduced by an (only apparently
> malicious :-) network card.  It's substantially cheaper.
> 
> There may be some other algorithm which is even better.

If distcc is being tunneled over SSH, no such message digest would be
necessary. SSH does its own strong hashing, but it's SHA-1 and
designed to withstand cryptographic attacks. It should definately be
adequate to guarentee the integrity of distcc communications.

Since distcc will hopefully support ssh as a transport natively, we
should keep this in mind and make the digest an optional part of the
protocol.