3 ms·
My impression is that people, in the absence of obvious (to them) differences in security, will choose a cryptographic function based on speed, which is simple
by tveita 14y ago
My impression is that people, in the absence of obvious (to them) differences in security, will choose a cryptographic function based on speed, which is simple to understand and quantify.
Going by the eBASH benchmarks, software implementations of Keccak are mostly the same speed as SHA-2, and for some CPUs it's significantly slower.
It does have better throughput/area ratio in hardware, but chip manufacturers are not early adapters.
With that in mind I can't see any major push for general SHA-3 adoption unless the SHA-2 family is broken.
Still, I'm looking forward to the reading the report.
- Zenst 14y ago"Keccak, created by Guido Bertoni, Joan Daemen and Gilles Van Assche of STMicroelectronics and Michaël Peeters of NXP Semiconductors" I don't think there will be any issue with regards to some early adopters. Maybe even a concideration with regards to common hardware usage like smartcards at some level. But whilst your right about SHA-2 not being broken and making the rush to SHA-3 moot, it does not stop marketing types getting sales over SHA-2 only complient. In that it will be marketing and drive for sales and standing out that will drive it into market with all things being as they stand. Besides, everybody likes a plan B to fall back upon.