This has come up a ton of times with the startup benchmark logging, where we report that we choose the “weak” hash even though it is slower than the “strong” hash. Just now someone interpreted it in terms of security:
What I (interested layman) associate with the “strongness/weakness” of a hash is how likely collisions are (which usually also correlates with how costly it is to compute). So I think the hash used for detecting shifted blocks is weak (-er than sha256) to minimize the performance impact. So calling this hash function weak by itself makes sense, but the combination of both the weak hash for shifting detection and the “normal” hash would probably be better dubbed “rolling”. This would also have the benefit that googling the term actually brings up relevant things, not just generic blah on “weakness of some hash functions”. If I am completely on the wrong track with my reasoning, please relieve me of that particular ignorance, and if not, I would propose a bit of
s/weak/rolling/gc on our code.