|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
Subject: Re: SHA-256 performance
From: Bram Cohen (bram
gawth.com)Date: Mon Oct 16 2000 - 15:26:46 CDT
- Next message: fairyisis
hotmail.com: "I have invited you to join the "Power Promotion" SmartGroup"
- Previous message: Joshua R. Poulson: "Re: why should it be trusted?"
- In reply to: Eric Young: "SHA-256 performance"
- Next in thread: Gé Weijers: "Re: SHA-256 performance"
- Reply: Bram Cohen: "Re: SHA-256 performance"
- Reply: Gé Weijers: "Re: SHA-256 performance"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Eric Young wrote:
> I've finally had a play with SHA-256, and for a C implementation
> on a Pentium II 350, I'm getting about 9,700,000 bytes/sec if I'm using
> 16k blocks. I'm not sure what other people are seeing as performance,
> but since SHA1 get at least 30,000,000 byte/sec, this is not that good.
>
> It is interesting to see the trend of block ciphers getting faster,
> hashes getting slower. I can see that there will be good reasons not
> to use SHA-256 in protocols outside of digital signatures.
This is rather alarming, and I doubt there's any good technical reason for
it.
A competition similar to AES selection to come up with a hash function
would be most welcome.
-Bram Cohen
- Next message: fairyisis
hotmail.com: "I have invited you to join the "Power Promotion" SmartGroup"
- Previous message: Joshua R. Poulson: "Re: why should it be trusted?"
- In reply to: Eric Young: "SHA-256 performance"
- Next in thread: Gé Weijers: "Re: SHA-256 performance"
- Reply: Bram Cohen: "Re: SHA-256 performance"
- Reply: Gé Weijers: "Re: SHA-256 performance"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]