News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions. Parent comment

Re:Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions by thunderbong on Saturday February 25, 2017 @08:35AM (#13731516)
From the article -

[3] Google spent 6500 CPU years and 110 GPU years to convince everyone we need to stop using SHA-1 for security critical applications

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions by jdavis703 on Saturday February 25, 2017 @10:49AM (#13732016)
Not only that, but it's better to start planning for a post SHA-1 reality before there's a real fire drill.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions by r1ch on Saturday February 25, 2017 @12:54PM (#13732768)
Unless my math is off, the combined power of the bitcoin network could find collisions in seconds (ignoring SHA-1 vs SHA-256). It isn't too unreasonable to assume that kind of hardware power would be available to nation states.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions by ben_w on Saturday February 25, 2017 @09:54AM (#13731793)
And the next fifteen years of Moore's Law will take that down to, what, 1 GPU month even without further algorithmic improvements? Which are anticipated?

I still see things that use 2-digit years, twenty years after the last millennium bug should have been fixed.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions by username223 on Saturday February 25, 2017 @12:05PM (#13732454)
"Next fifteen years of Moore's Law?" The recent failure of Intel's "tick-tock" alternation of process shrinkage and new architecture suggests that however performance improves in the next 15 years, projecting the last 15 years' Moore's Law forward is a bad idea. For crypto stuff, I'd think about how quantum computing may advance by the 2030s.
[ Parent | on HN ]