4 ms·
Your question is irrelevant. If you don't care about security, SHA1 is a bad choice because there are faster hash functions out there. If you do care about secu
by dagenix 4y ago
Your question is irrelevant. If you don't care about security, SHA1 is a bad choice because there are faster hash functions out there. If you do care about security, SHA1 is a bad choice because it has known flaws and there exist other algorithms that don't. The only valid reason to use SHA1 is if there is a historical requirement to use it that you can't reasonably change.
Any analysis about how hard it is for an attacker to get a file on your local file system via a cloned got repo, cached file, email attachment, image download, shared drive, etc is just a distraction.
- adrian_b 4y agoYou would be right, except that there are no faster hash functions (on all modern Intel, AMD and ARM CPUs, which have hardware SHA-1). BLAKE 3 is faster only in wall clock time, on an otherwise idle computer, because it fully uses all CPU cores, but it does not do less work. BLAKE 3 is preferable only when the computer does nothing else but hashing.
- lazide 4y agoUh no. On a modern intel CPU, one core of SHA1 does about 500MB/s worth of hashing. Blake3 on the same core is 1.5GB/s or faster.
- oconnor663 4y agoOn the ThinkPad I'm typing this on, the single-threaded BLAKE3 benchmarks hit 8.8 GB/s :)