[Cryptography] Sha3

Peter Fairbrother zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk
Sun Oct 6 21:13:22 EDT 2013


On 05/10/13 00:09, Dan Kaminsky wrote:
> Because not being fast enough means you don't ship.  You don't ship, you
> didn't secure anything.
>
> Performance will in fact trump security.  This is the empirical reality.
>   There's some budget for performance loss. But we have lots and lots of
> slow functions. Fast is the game.

That may once have been mostly true, but no longer - now it's mostly false.

In almost every case nowadays the speed at which a device computes a 
SHA-3 hash doesn't matter at all. Devices are either way fast enough, or 
they can't use SHA-3 at all, whether or not it is made 50% faster.


> (Now, whether my theory that we stuck with MD5 over SHA1 because
> variable field lengths are harder to parse in C -- that's an open
> question to say the least.)

:)

-- Peter Fairbrother


More information about the cryptography mailing list