3 ms·
Why mention md5 at this point, or even SHA1, when BLAKE2 exists? (assuming the people there don't want SHA2 because of slower performance): https://blake2.net/
by higherpurpose 12y ago
Why mention md5 at this point, or even SHA1, when BLAKE2 exists? (assuming the people there don't want SHA2 because of slower performance): https://blake2.net/ https://blake2.net/
- mercurial 12y agoWell, that's kind of the point. You don't want performance here.
- tptacek 12y agoNothing in that thread annoyed me as much as this comment does. Yes, BLAKE2 is trendy, and name-dropping is tempting. But BLAKE2 is also not a password hash, and can't safely be used to store authenticators for passwords.
- peterwwillis 12y agoRight; it's a cryptographic hash. Technically there's no such thing as a 'password hash', only password KDFs and their results, which are composed primarily by cryptographic hashes. I think the guy's point was that if you're going to build a password KDF, you might as well use a hash function that's less shitty than MD5 and SHA1.
- tptacek 12y agoThese people would disagree with you: https://password-hashing.net/ https://password-hashing.net/ I was on your side for awhile, advocating that we just teach people about what a KDF is, but my side lost.
- peterwwillis 12y agoThe only winning move is not to play.