3 ms·
Wow, so offensive. Didn't mean it that way, but if it turned out that, what a heck then. What I wanted to say was that slowness is not necessary attribute, unle
by ilvez 7y ago
Wow, so offensive. Didn't mean it that way, but if it turned out that, what a heck then. What I wanted to say was that slowness is not necessary attribute, unless we really seek it. If we could get very good and quick algorithm without being it slow, we would use it. Thanks for misinterpreting my smiley too. Have a good evening there.
- geofft 7y ago> If we could get very good and quick algorithm without being it slow, we would use it. No, that's simply not true, and that's what the person you replied to was trying to say. For a password hashing algorithm, you actively want it to be slow - to have a mathematically guaranteed minimum amount of time that each attempt takes, regardless of implementation. This is a security property of a password-hashing algorithm. It is a necessary attribute - you can't have a "good" password-hashing algorithm whose output can be computed arbitrarily quickly. What you might be saying is that if an inefficient implementation is slow, we'd like to speed it up. Sure. The requirement of a good algorithm is that the most efficient implementation possible is slow.