[Cryptography] BLAKE2: "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger" Than MD5
jon at callas.org
Mon Mar 24 00:56:59 EDT 2014
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mar 23, 2014, at 9:02 PM, Bill Cox <waywardgeek at gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, while Keccak does sound cool, the reasons for choosing over
> Blake2 are reasons I would have avoided it. As discussed above, being
> like SHA2 should likely be considered a good thing now, and being more
> efficient in hardware, IMO, should generally be considered a bad
> thing, and certainly not a reason for choosing the SHA3 winner.
> However, I only know about a small subset of the security field, and
> in protecting passwords, it's critical to find algorithms that are
> inefficient in hardware. Someone suggested Keccat on the PHC list,
> and I think it went over like a lead balloon.
There was a very important reason that Blake2 was not picked. It wasn't an entry. Blake was an entry, and Blake2 is a successor to Blake.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Universal 3.2.0 (Build 1672)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the cryptography