3 ms·
If you're not willing to move to SHA256 "because of performance," you should at least move to Blake2. https://blake2.net/ https://blake2.net/ There's no excus
by mtgx 10y ago
If you're not willing to move to SHA256 "because of performance," you should at least move to Blake2.
https://blake2.net/ https://blake2.net/
There's no excuse for staying with SHA1 at this point.
- thunderbong 10y agoFrom the article - [3] Google spent 6500 CPU years and 110 GPU years to convince everyone we need to stop using SHA-1 for security critical applications
- ben_w 10y agoAnd the next fifteen years of Moore's Law will take that down to, what, 1 GPU month even without further algorithmic improvements? Which are anticipated? I still see things that use 2-digit years, twenty years after the last millennium bug should have been fixed.
- username223 10y ago"Next fifteen years of Moore's Law?" The recent failure of Intel's "tick-tock" alternation of process shrinkage and new architecture suggests that however performance improves in the next 15 years, projecting the last 15 years' Moore's Law forward is a bad idea. For crypto stuff, I'd think about how quantum computing may advance by the 2030s.
- jdavis703 10y agoNot only that, but it's better to start planning for a post SHA-1 reality before there's a real fire drill.
- r1ch 10y agoUnless my math is off, the combined power of the bitcoin network could find collisions in seconds (ignoring SHA-1 vs SHA-256). It isn't too unreasonable to assume that kind of hardware power would be available to nation states.
- hsivonen 10y agoIndeed, it would be nice if the article acknowledged the existence of BLAKE2b.