[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