RIPEMD-160 vs SHA-1: Which is More Secure Today?
2 min read
Both RIPEMD-160 and SHA-1 produce 160-bit outputs, but their security and adoption have diverged over the years. SHA-1, once dominant, is now considered broken, while RIPEMD-160 remains relatively secure and still plays a role in blockchain.
Why SHA-1 Failed
SHA-1’s weaknesses were exposed in the mid-2000s, with researchers demonstrating practical collision attacks. By 2017, Google and major certificate authorities had fully deprecated SHA-1 in TLS/SSL certificates. Today, using SHA-1 for cryptography is considered a critical vulnerability.
RIPEMD-160: Still Holding Strong
Unlike SHA-1, RIPEMD-160 has not been broken by practical attacks. It remains trusted in specific domains, particularly Bitcoin addresses, where it’s combined with SHA-256 to generate public keys. Its unique design (five parallel 32-bit chains) has made it more resistant to collision attacks compared to SHA-1.
Head-to-Head Comparison
| Feature | RIPEMD-160 | SHA-1 |
|---|---|---|
| Output Length | 160-bit | 160-bit |
| Security Status | Safe (no practical breaks) | Broken (collisions demonstrated) |
| Blockchain Use | Yes (Bitcoin) | No |
Which One Should You Use?
- Never use SHA-1 for new applications — it’s unsafe.
- Use RIPEMD-160 if you need compatibility with Bitcoin or legacy systems.
- For new projects, consider SHA-256 or SHA-3 instead.
Try It Yourself
Want to experiment? Use our RIPEMD-160 Generator to create secure 160-bit hashes instantly, client-side.
For further reading, explore our guide to RIPEMD-160 and our RIPEMD-160 vs SHA-256 comparison.