On Apr 23, 2012, at 12:51 14PM, David Adamson wrote:
> On 4/23/12, Samuel Neves <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On big hardware, the fastest SHA-3 candidates (BLAKE, Skein) are very
>> much closer to MD5 in performance (~5.5 cpb) than SHA-2. Plus, I don't
>> see any platform where CubeHash16/32 wins over either of them in speed.
>>
>> The place where SHA-2 shines is the very low end. Performance there,
>> however, is usually measured in gates, not cpb.
>>
>
> The latest performance of Skein and BLAKE that you are mentioning is
> due the continuous efforts of designers and independent programmers to
> improve their implementation. As I can see, measurements of SHA-2 are
> mostly from an OpenSSL implementation that is not as much optimized as
> the implementations of the 5 SHA-3 finalists. But once SHA-2 is
> started to be as aggressively optimized as SHA-3 finalists, we will
> see reports like the one in [1]: "Furthermore, even the fastest
> finalists will probably offer only a small performance advantage over
> the current SHA-256 and SHA-512 implementations."
>
> Unfortunately, also I do not see any more improvements of the
> implementations of other SHA-3 candidates that did not enter 2-nd and
> final round (especially CubeHash, Shabal, BMW, Edon-R, Echo and SIMD).
>
And the MD6 team withdrew their submission because they couldn't make
it fast enough and still have enough security.
--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
cryptography mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
