[Cryptography] BLAKE2: "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger" Than MD5

[Jon Callas]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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.

	Jon


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Universal 3.2.0 (Build 1672)
Charset: us-ascii

wj8DBQFTL7scsTedWZOD3gYRAqm8AKDFIE/LMC8HDdZVAkbPE3J9+sPXnACdEVUZ
6SMtDQEwa5ywUfHLDyWjzPo=
=GAMH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----