3 ms·

Wicked. BenchmarkHighwayHash 11986.98 MB/s BenchmarkSHA256_AVX512 3552.74 MB/s BenchmarkBlake2b 972.38 MB/s Bench

• arcticbull 8y ago
  Seems a little disingenuous to compare it to those hashes, which have very different guarantees re: hash collisions as they point out in the first section. Seems like SIP would be the better point of comparison, unless I've missed something.
  • fro0116 8y ago
    I'm curious what the article is referring to when it comes to collision resistance. I was looking at the GitHub repo posted below and saw only claims of "strong" collision resistance: https://github.com/google/highwayhash https://github.com/google/highwayhash Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with the details of the collision resistance properties of the other hash functions here to know how they compare. Could someone elaborate on the specifics of why HighwayHash compares poorly in terms of collision resistance to the others in the benchmark?
• nneonneo 8y ago
  HighwayHash is explicitly called out as being not cryptographically secure. Every other hash in your list is (or was) considered cryptographically secure. Therefore these aren’t really comparable, and it was somewhat disingenuous of the authors here to make that comparison.
  • CJefferson 8y ago
    I think somewhat disingenuous is a bit soft, given these people should know better, in my mind it is scientific misconduct to only compare against cryptographicly secure hashes.