Was MD4 removed?

[IcySon55]

If yes, please add it again.

If not, please add it.

Thank you!

[sergeevabc]

@IcySon55, could you be so kind to tell more about your use case?

[IcySon55]

It's been a while. I may have wanted it for use in the preservation community but looking up the current requirements, it's not used there. Perhaps the only reason now would be for completeness but I guess it's a coin toss if you care to implement or not.

[NintendoManiac64]

@sergeevabc

While I'm not OP, I had previously created an issue regarding the exact same thing over on idrassi's most recent fork:

• Re-add MD4 support, if not at least for reading existing .MD4 checksum files? idrassi/HashCheck#13

My rational for wanting MD4 is stated in the above issue, but here's the text copy & pasted here for your convenience:

For whatever reason, on my dual-core Haswell CPU, I measured MD4 to actually be the fastest... (yes, faster than even CRC32).

So for many years I've been using MD4 with the original HashCheck Shell Extension and it'd be nice if I could still access those .MD4 checksums files. I'm not that concerned with the ability to create new MD4 files as I've generally moved on to SHA1 for its more widespread compatibility, bu at least being able to read existing .MD4 checksum files would be nice.

The main issue nowadays is that SHA256 has widely replaced SHA1 for internet downloads, and yet there's no current version of HashCheck Shell Extension that supports both—the only versions I know of is v2.2.2 and v2.2.3 which unfortunately also predate not just the implementation of SHA512 but also predate the implementation of multi-threading.

(it also obviously predates @idrassi's fork that adds the likes of BLAKE3 as well as @gus33000's fork that adds ARM64 support...but lacks @idrassi's additions)