3 ms·
PBKDF2 and SHA256 are fine for all use cases and have libraries available in all languages. argon2 has nothing better to offer. Practically there are 3 argon v
by user5994461 6y ago
PBKDF2 and SHA256 are fine for all use cases and have libraries available in all languages.
argon2 has nothing better to offer. Practically there are 3 argon variants to chose from and they all require careful configuration. It's pretty hard to start with, assuming you can find libraries for it in the first place, last I checked it wasn't commonly supported.
It's a perfect example of theory versus practice. Argon is a researcher's wet dream, ideal by some algorithmic definitions, yet it has no benefits in practice.
- CyberRage 6y agoAre you serious? Even something that would be considered "bad" argon2 set-up is far better than anything that is based on SHA256. Modern GPUs and ASICs can perform millions of SHA operations per second, even with a poorly configured Argon2, you reduce that massively.
- user5994461 6y agoYou can't compare plain SHA256 with PBKDF2. PBKDF2 can take a million SHA operations to hash one password, if you configure it to (default is somewhere 10k to 1M). If you were to leak your company database with 1 million customers and hashed passwords, there's some theoretical considerations to be made on resistance to GPU and ASIC cracking, practically you're in a pretty bad place whichever algorithm was used. ^^ P.S. Cryptography would have more weight if half the passwords weren't a variation of password2021 and hunter22.
- goalieca 6y ago> You can't compare plain SHA256 with PBKDF2. But you can. It’s literally just N times the hash. Typically the number of iterations is chosen to be somewhat slow on the server that derives it. But a specially designed rig can execute this with extreme parallelism and speed.