Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blake3 is 10 times faster than SHA-2

nextjournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 171 posts

Re: Blake3 is 10 times faster than SHA-2

#3

Post by jchw »

diego_moita wrote: post #2

Is "faster" always a good thing in hashing algorithms? Suppose a hashed password database falls into wrong hands. If they're hashed with a faster algorithm wouldn't it be easier to try a dictionary attack to discover the real passwords?

Blake3 is not for use in a password hashing algorithm; those have different goals. Check out Argon2 or bcrypt for that.

Re: Blake3 is 10 times faster than SHA-2

#4

Post by codetrotter »

diego_moita wrote: post #2

Is "faster" always a good thing in hashing algorithms? Suppose a hashed password database falls into wrong hands. If they're hashed with a faster algorithm wouldn't it be easier to try a dictionary attack to discover the real passwords?

Blake3 is explicitly not a password hashing algorithm. For that use Bcrypt or Scrypt or Argon2. The authors of Blake3 point this out in the README of Blake3.

Re: Blake3 is 10 times faster than SHA-2

#5

Post by diego_moita »

jchw wrote: post #3
diego_moita wrote: post #2

Is "faster" always a good thing in hashing algorithms? Suppose a hashed password database falls into wrong hands. If they're hashed with a faster algorithm wouldn't it be easier to try a dictionary attack to discover the real passwords?

Blake3 is not for use in a password hashing algorithm; those have different goals. Check out Argon2 or bcrypt for that.

Ok, thank you.

I understand that it is for implementing things like dictionaries/hash tables.

Re: Blake3 is 10 times faster than SHA-2

#6

Post by jayflux »

diego_moita wrote: post #2

Is "faster" always a good thing in hashing algorithms? Suppose a hashed password database falls into wrong hands. If they're hashed with a faster algorithm wouldn't it be easier to try a dictionary attack to discover the real passwords?

For general purpose algorithms yes. Blake3 is not a password hashing algorithm it’s a general purpose one, used for checksums or verifying 2 files are the same etc.

For password hashing you’re correct they should be slow, bcrypt for example.

Re: Blake3 is 10 times faster than SHA-2

#8

Post by brandmeyer »

rurban wrote: post #7

Not really. It's even 2x slower than SHA256-NI, the builtin. b3sum is much faster than sha256sum, and blake3 is about 2x faster than blake2. http://rurban.github.io/smhasher/doc/table.html

Just exactly what does the "insecure" flag mean in your tables? I'm curious about the kind of definition you are using for security whereby sha2 fails but farmhash passes.

Re: Blake3 is 10 times faster than SHA-2

#9

Post by lucb1e »

diego_moita wrote: post #5
jchw wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blake3 is not for use in a password hashing algorithm; those have different goals. Check out Argon2 or bcrypt for that.

Ok, thank you. I understand that it is for implementing things like dictionaries/hash tables.

Or integrity checking for non-authenticated encryption modes (wouldn't want file encryption or https to be slow).
Post reply on HN