On 12/12/2011 12:55 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Dec 12, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Marsh Ray wrote:
It's already somewhat ambiguous now that NIST has
defined SHA[-2]-512/256.
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsDrafts.html#fips-180-4
Then that is what it must be called: "sha2-512/256". I think that's a legal
string in HTTP headers.
Supposedly this is faster on 64-bit applications. I wonder if that is true in
practice.
SHA-2-512/256 should perform identically to plain SHA-2-512. It's the
same function only with a different IV.
This site is dedicated to benchmarking hash functions:
http://bench.cr.yp.to/results-hash.html
It doesn't appear to be faster than, say, SHA-1, SHA-2-512 but does not
appear to be subject to the same attacks either.
So far, I have seen no implementations of this hash function.
I made one for use at work, but it's only a minor adjustment to the RFC
6234 SHA-2-512 reference code.
- Marsh
_______________________________________________
websec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
