Re:Password Cracking with 8x Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti GPUs
by cleeus on Wednesday June 14, 2017 @02:57AM
(#14551097)
I have not looked deeply at mmhash3 (I guess it means murmurhash3), but wikipedia says:
[...] When using 128-bits, the x86 and x64 versions do not produce the same values [...]
which will make it unsuitable for cross-platform applications. I was talking about a usecase where you could also choose CRC32 from a security standpoint but want more collision resistance. How does blake2 performance compare to MD5?
Re:Password Cracking with 8x Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti GPUs
by aappleby on Wednesday June 14, 2017 @03:36AM
(#14551220)
The wikipedia page might be a bit misleading - there's a 128-bit murmur3 that uses 32-bit math (works well on most every processor), and a 128-bit murmur3 that uses 64-bit math (much faster on 64-bit processors, much slower on 32-bit ones)
-Austin, Murmur author.
(Actually, besides portability and interoperability, there's probably no good reason to use SHA-anything over blake2. Although if you are working in environments that provide hardware crypto support (Intel SHA Extensions on Atom, now also supported on Ryzen so maybe we'll see it on the desktop, too), SHA becomes faster than blake2 and you should use that instead.)
If at any point you find yourself in a situation where your hash being computed too fast poses a security risk, that should be a HUGE warning. Hashes should be fast, cryptographic or otherwise. If you need a "slow hash" you are probably looking for a derivation algorithm and not a hash and should be looking at scrypt, bcrypt, or even pbkdf2.