There is a crypto++ library: hash functions SHA-1 <http://www.cryptolounge.org/wiki/SHA-1>, SHA-2 <http://www.cryptolounge.org/wiki/FIPS_180-2> (SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512), Tiger <http://www.cryptolounge.org/wiki/Tiger>, WHIRLPOOL <http://www.cryptolounge.org/wiki/WHIRLPOOL>, RIPEMD-128, RIPEMD-256, RIPEMD-160, RIPEMD-320
It has an MMX Whirlpool, and SSE2 SHA implementation. The problem is that it is written in C++ and assembly and the MMX implementation could be slower than the C++ one on the Geode. see: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Geode All in all, include in speed testing. C. Scott Ananian wrote: > On 9/22/07, Mitch Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Some timing for libtomcrypt with various compilation options. All times >> are for hashing 1MiB of data from memory, timed under Open Firmware with >> interrupts disabled. >> > [...] > >> So, with this code, the slow version does sha256 at about 4 MiB/sec, the >> fast version does sha256 at about 5.3 MiB/sec, and rm160 goes at 9 >> MiB/sec in all cases. >> > > Hmm. I did browse through all the SHA256 implementations I could > find, looking at libtomcrypt, libgcrypt, and openssl in particular. > Most of what I've seen has followed the definitions in the SHA > standard pretty closely; unrolling the loops seems to be the only > common "optimization". Assuming you were starting from portable C > code, it seems that compiler quality had the most effect, which made > me realize that I don't actually know the appropriate machine type to > pass the the GCC optimizer, prompting my original post. > > Some more SHA256 implementations I found which claim to be optimized: > http://www.ouah.org/ogay/sha2/ > http://fp.gladman.plus.com/cryptography_technology/sha/index.htm > > I'd gladly accept a volunteer to go through and benchmark different > implementations on XO hardware. From my initial investigations, it > seems like we should use RIPEMD-160 for bulk hashing of filesystem > data. There were some recent cryptoanalytic results against RIPEMD, > however; I need to go off and reread them to get a sense for its > current level of security. > --scott > > _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
