5 ms·
It's not "strange"... earlier hash algorithms tend to enjoy better performance and compatibility, and there are still use cases for which SHA1 (and even MD5) ar
by mehrdadn 6y ago
It's not "strange"... earlier hash algorithms tend to enjoy better performance and compatibility, and there are still use cases for which SHA1 (and even MD5) aren't broken.
- bawolff 6y agoSha256 has special instructions in silicon for it. Performance is not a reasonable excuse. If performance mattered and you didnt need sha's security properties, you would be using CRC32 or something.
- mehrdadn 6y agoExcused or not, I'm merely explaining why this isn't surprising.
- cyphar 6y agoBut there are even better choices for non-cryptographic hash functions (FNV and MurmurHash for instance) because they were designed without the need to have a tradeoff between cryptographic security and efficiency.