Blake3 is 10 times faster than SHA-2

Re:Blake3 is 10 times faster than SHA-2 by dpc_pw on Saturday January 11, 2020 @05:53PM (#22022955)

They are computationally slow, no tricks. The purpose is to prevent attackers from calculating the plain passwords if they actually got access to the content of your DB. They are not that slow (let's say less than a second to calculate) - fast enough for your user to not notice , slow enough so that attacker can't do gazillion tries per second with their GPU or something.

As per DOS: rate limit per ip and account, and it's not an issue.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Blake3 is 10 times faster than SHA-2 by phiresky on Saturday January 11, 2020 @06:38PM (#22023243)

> They are computationally slow, no tricks

They have to and do use tricks, they aren't just slow. You could trivially make sha256 slow by just applying it a million times (that's not even parallelizable as well), but scrypt et al improve on that by making the algorithm also require a lot of RAM, use complex instructions (hard to recreate on a GPU or FPGA) and so on.

It's really hard to do very well, look at cryptocurrencies trying to be ASIC resistant: They want every normal person to be able to mine it, and don't want companies to be able to build a machine that can eclipse the mining power of everyone which means centralization.

[ Parent | on HN ]