4 ms·
Isn'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 al
by statictype 15y ago
Isn'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!