GCHQ – Not So Secure?

Re:GCHQ – Not So Secure? by ajanuary on Tuesday March 26, 2013 @02:56PM (#5445309)

Indeed. This is where I agree with to that the article is a bit weak. It overstates the problem of repeated hashing and doesn't explain how bcrypt solves that problem at all. It makes it sound like a completely different and magical solution rather than repeated hashing with collision mitigation.

It's more a case of "hey, here's a potential problem you might not have thought of, here's an algorithm that addresses it."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GCHQ – Not So Secure? by tryeng on Tuesday March 26, 2013 @03:37PM (#5445580)

Then I guess we might agree.

The only advantage I know of with bcrypt over multple SHA2 is that GPUs are very bad at it compared to most hashing functions, so the CPU cost (on my server) and the GPU cost (the crackers' cost) are not too different. (Anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Off-topic: This exponential reply delay is really annoying.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GCHQ – Not So Secure? by trotsky on Tuesday March 26, 2013 @04:09PM (#5445754)

you guys can click on the [link] right above the post and you'll be able to reply without a delay.

[ Parent | on HN ]