3 ms·
PQC would be more interesting than bizarre and SHA-3 wouldn’t be bizarre at all (it’s a straight improvement on SHA-2 in isolation).
by minitech 6y ago
PQC would be more interesting than bizarre and SHA-3 wouldn’t be bizarre at all (it’s a straight improvement on SHA-2 in isolation).
- bawolff 6y ago> (it’s a straight improvement on SHA-2 in isolation). That's debatable.
- tialaramex 6y agoRight, the only technical sense in which SHA-3 is simply "a straight improvement on" SHA-2 is resistance to length extension, but you can have that with SHA-512/256 (yes that's the name of one SHA-2 family member, if you didn't already know that, and you were previously confident SHA-3 is what you needed, time to do some reading). In a non-technical sense to be sure 3 is a bigger number than 2 but that's a terrible reason to do anything. Keccak's sponge construction is novel, it has some cool features compared to Merkle–Damgård but when SHA-3 was standardised we had very little experience with this construction. Now, maybe we lucked out and these are the perfect parameters, not too slow, not too weak. But most likely we went too far in one direction and so hence "Maybe Skip SHA-3" https://www.imperialviolet.org/2017/05/31/skipsha3.html https://www.imperialviolet.org/2017/05/31/skipsha3.html