3 ms·
The problem is, I've actually not seen anything arguing that bcrypt was cryptographically stronger, only thing arguing it was exponentially slower.
by PLejeck 15y ago
The problem is, I've actually not seen anything arguing that bcrypt was cryptographically stronger, only thing arguing it was exponentially slower.
- statictype 15y agoIsn't that enough of a reason to use it? It (currently) doesn't seem likely that either bcrypt or SHA-something are going to be busted open by a flaw in the algorithm. On the other hand, the fact that bcrypt has a large work-load makes it significantly less likely to be broken by someone running a cluster of GPU-equipped EC2 instances. Let me ask it this way: What reason do you have for not using bcrypt considering everyone seems to suggest it? Do you worry that it's too slow? Or that the implementation is weak? Or something else?
- PLejeck 15y agoI'm worried that the system is too slow for too little benefit. I'm also worried the CPU usage might also be higher than a simple SHA-2 hash. I also worry that it's not really as "future-proof" as people seem to think. Every algorithm gets busted open eventually, given Moore's Law, they can try more ways faster. Plus, once we have quantum computing, all the cryptographic algorithms we know and love are busted wide open. Hell, AES has been busted already in quantum computing!
- rmc 15y agoAlthough I gave out about arm chair cryptography, here's some arm chair cryptanalysis: The NSA created SHA-512. They are in the middle of choosing a successor, implying that SHA-512 isn't good enough any more and it's time to have a backup. The Wikipedia page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-512 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-512 ) lists some cryptographic flaws, which implies it's time to start retiring it.