Hi Ytti, I have to apologize for the subject. I have SHA2/3 in mind because NIST said that MD5 is "not recommended". I have answered Matthew, but it was blocked by the mailman. This answer is very relevant to you too:
Hi Matthew, Thanks for the discussion. It is the right approach to calculate carefully. I do not believe that MD5 is a good basis; NIST recommends moving away from it. I am not qualified to question NIST decisions. I have already pointed out the reference to https://www.ijcna.org/Manuscripts/IJCNA-2020-O-01.pdf . It is SHA-3; I have not found good data for SHA-2 (I was interested in ARM). They have a table in section 6.1 for all sizes. It is 4151199 Cycles for 750B. The maximum clock for the ARM core is about 2Ghz (practically less, routers do not have enough cooling for this). Hence, this 750B would be checked for 2ms. There is a discussion in the IETF that in the big networks, many attributes (TE, flex-algo, whatever) are attached in ISIS, hence the packet may be full size (1500B). Then the hash would be 4ms. Twice (8ms) if the message is relayed, because a hash would be needed on input and output. Hence, I do not understand why 5ms is “completely incorrect”. Eduard -----Original Message----- From: Saku Ytti <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2025 09:39 To: North American Network Operators Group <[email protected]> Cc: Vasilenko Eduard <[email protected]> Subject: Re: MD5 is slow On Wed, 10 Sept 2025 at 09:12, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <[email protected]> wrote: > But it's reality. Many passwords are not strong enough. > More importantly, hash has XX rounds to give a really random output. > Hence, the hash is designed to be slow. No, not all hashes, only hashes for some application for some reason. MD5, SHA are designed to be fast. You can look into SHA competition and see that CPB is a metric which they are measured against. They have to be fast in the existing instruction set and they have to be friendly towards HW acceleration to win SHA competition. You really need to look at your application before you start to define what metrics hash should and should not have. Yes, for password hashing (like legacy unix 8 bytes) MD5 was a poor choice. For authenticating ISIS, BGP whatever, there is absolutely no reason for it to be slow. In the above example you need collision, any input string will be accepted. For BGP MD5, TCP-AO, it is authenticating the _message_, not only you need collision, but you need the input to be valid and conducive towards your attack vector. I continue to be at loss, this thread has made these points repeatedly. It is also easy to verify out of the thread that you are not being misled when you are told being slow is not only a non-goal but undesirable for most hash use cases. And there are many hash use cases, your programming language needs hash to do associative arrays, your switch needs hash to do ECMP (which is interesting topic onto itself, as we used to use same CRC as for ethernet FCS, which turns out to be not good hash for ECMP). -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/HKFJNL7YCWF3OBWE6NN3PPTNYP5EFX7M/
