| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1197
Location: Jefferson, USA
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:24 pm Post subject: Keccak is SHA-3 |
 |
|
| It looks like the Keccak algorithm won the NIST's SHA-3 competition. It has the ability to generate arbitrary hash sizes. I don't see anywhere that a specific hash size is considered "SHA-3." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pigeon768
l33t
Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 667
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SHA-2 was similar. SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512 are all SHA-2.
SHA-3 is just more flexible.
_________________
My political bias. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mdeininger
Veteran
Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 1738
Location: University of Tuebingen, Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
interesting.
how did the other algorithms do? iirc for sha-1 or 2 they rejected an algorithm that was known to be more secure in favour of another that is easier to compute. did they do that this time, too?
_________________
"Confident, lazy, cocky, dead." -- Felix Jongleur, Otherland
( hot: jyujinX on Twitter | ef.gy ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ichbinsisyphos
Guru
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 547
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.nist.gov/itl/csd/sha-100212.cfm
| Quote: | | and Keccak has higher performance in hardware implementations than SHA-2 or any of the other finalists. |
"more secure" is relative though. Bruce Schneier is convinced that switching to SHA-3 is not useful for security reasons alone any time soon, so at the time SHA-2 was picked the security benefit of other competitors was more than likely not worth sacrificing performance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mdeininger
Veteran
Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 1738
Location: University of Tuebingen, Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | http://www.nist.gov/itl/csd/sha-100212.cfm
| Quote: | | and Keccak has higher performance in hardware implementations than SHA-2 or any of the other finalists. |
"more secure" is relative though. Bruce Schneier is convinced that switching to SHA-3 is not useful for security reasons alone any time soon, so at the time SHA-2 was picked the security benefit of other competitors was more than likely not worth sacrificing performance. |
aah, thanks for the link. I found the first part of the paragraph to be far more reassuring though, so I'll quote it in full:
| Quote: | | The NIST team praised the Keccak algorithm for its many admirable qualities, including its elegant design and its ability to run well on many different computing devices. The clarity of Keccak’s construction lends itself to easy analysis (during the competition all submitted algorithms were made available for public examination and criticism), and Keccak has higher performance in hardware implementations than SHA-2 or any of the other finalists. |
I remember that for sha-2 (or maybe sha-1) one candidate was specifically rejected because it took slightly longer to computer, even though it was theoretically harder to break (which is bad). sha-3 looks good so far though. Very good even :3.
But yeah, no need to switch anytime soon. Hell even sha-1's best attack requires 2^51 operations. The algorithm looks nice to implement in hardware though.
_________________
"Confident, lazy, cocky, dead." -- Felix Jongleur, Otherland
( hot: jyujinX on Twitter | ef.gy ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1197
Location: Jefferson, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AES was the same way. Twofish was seen as far more secure, but Rijndael was picked for performance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
avx
Advocate
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 2064
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Meh, don't like it. Performing good/easily doable in specialized hardware usually benefits the parties you actually wanna leave out. I for one will stay with Tiger for hashes and Serpent for encryption; come to think of it, Tiger&Serpent is a pretty naming combo.
_________________
++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]>++.>+.+++++++..+++.>++.<<+++++++++++++++.>.+++.------.--------.>+.>. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1197
Location: Jefferson, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Serpent's probably up to snuff, at least according to the NIST. Who's reviewed Tiger? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
avx
Advocate
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 2064
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_(cryptography)
It's also by the same guys who designed Serpent. Don't really know why it's not used as widespread as others, though.
_________________
++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]>++.>+.+++++++..+++.>++.<<+++++++++++++++.>.+++.------.--------.>+.>. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mdeininger
Veteran
Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 1738
Location: University of Tuebingen, Germany
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| avx wrote: | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_(cryptography)
It's also by the same guys who designed Serpent. Don't really know why it's not used as widespread as others, though. |
everyone's really only aiming for AES and SHA. it gives managers a warm feeling in their boxers because they're standard-y.
not sure why "standard encryption" would be good to sell though...
but yeah, tiger is nice, and I've always used serpent on everything simply because it's a solid algorithm. and AES breakers can't really work with it  .
_________________
"Confident, lazy, cocky, dead." -- Felix Jongleur, Otherland
( hot: jyujinX on Twitter | ef.gy ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1197
Location: Jefferson, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AES breakers haven't really broken AES, either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mdeininger
Veteran
Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 1738
Location: University of Tuebingen, Germany
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wswartzendruber wrote: | | AES breakers haven't really broken AES, either. |
true, but they'd have a much harder time with serpent if they ever do break it  .
_________________
"Confident, lazy, cocky, dead." -- Felix Jongleur, Otherland
( hot: jyujinX on Twitter | ef.gy ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1197
Location: Jefferson, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I personally use DES for everything. IBM makes the best stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
DES has been considered insecure for years.
Maybe you're using Triple-DES?
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1197
Location: Jefferson, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hah, no. I'm just being an ass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1488
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wswartzendruber wrote: | | Hah, no. I'm just being an ass. |
Oh. My sarcasm LED didn't go on.  
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Off the Wall
