Does this mean that this variant will be resubmmited as SHA-3?
SHA-3 competition is over, Keccak won, so no.
BLAKE2, an improved version of the SHA-3 finalist BLAKE optimized for speed
11–20 of 34 posts
Re: BLAKE2, an improved version of the SHA-3 finalist BLAKE optimized for speed
#12A little off topic, but since it's on the page: Is it only me or does "mebibyte" simply look wrong? You can't just decide that people aren't supposed to say "megabyte" anymore
I agree that it looks odd. However, especially in applications like cryptography, I think that removing the ambiguity of "megabyte" (i.e. do we mean 10^6 or 2^20 bytes?) is worth the introduction of a new term.
Re: BLAKE2, an improved version of the SHA-3 finalist BLAKE optimized for speed
#13I'm not sure how reduced memory requirements are a benefit to encryption. Are there really any low end systems still in use today that actually have issues with memory usage? Even $150 notebooks come with 1 gig of ram. This seems more like it would help save ram on interception devices like the Narus Device or the huge datacenters owned by the NSA, which have a huge issue with storing all the data required to interce…
[deleted]
Re: BLAKE2, an improved version of the SHA-3 finalist BLAKE optimized for speed
#14I'm not sure how reduced memory requirements are a benefit to encryption. Are there really any low end systems still in use today that actually have issues with memory usage? Even $150 notebooks come with 1 gig of ram. This seems more like it would help save ram on interception devices like the Narus Device or the huge datacenters owned by the NSA, which have a huge issue with storing all the data required to interce…
I think of reduced memory requirements as a benefit to every application, including encryption. That's because nearly every application I use competes for memory; I also use memory as general storage media for stuff for which I want fast I/O and/or don't need to save permanently (e.g. mfs or tmpfs mounts). I think of memory as a precious resource.
That doesn't really apply to memory use on the order of a single kilobyte. You're not going to be hashing many different streams at once.
Re: BLAKE2, an improved version of the SHA-3 finalist BLAKE optimized for speed
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think of reduced memory requirements as a benefit to every application, including encryption. That's because nearly every application I use competes for memory; I also use memory as general storage media for stuff for which I want fast I/O and/or don't need to save permanently (e.g. mfs or tmpfs mounts). I think of memory as a precious resource.
Think of encryption as more secure the harder it is to do. Optimizing encryption for the benefit of other applications is backwards.
Think about RSA. Harder Encryption (computationally) is achieved with a high e. Too bad that Wiener in 1990 proved that if d (private key) is small enough we can easily crack it using continued fractions.
Re: BLAKE2, an improved version of the SHA-3 finalist BLAKE optimized for speed
#16A little off topic, but since it's on the page: Is it only me or does "mebibyte" simply look wrong? You can't just decide that people aren't supposed to say "megabyte" anymore
as other people pointed out, Mebibyte is the correct form.
You can't just make the wrong version right by means of usage.
Re: BLAKE2, an improved version of the SHA-3 finalist BLAKE optimized for speed
#17A little off topic, but since it's on the page: Is it only me or does "mebibyte" simply look wrong? You can't just decide that people aren't supposed to say "megabyte" anymore
I agree that it looks odd. However, especially in applications like cryptography, I think that removing the ambiguity of "megabyte" (i.e. do we mean 10^6 or 2^20 bytes?) is worth the introduction of a new term.
Do you mean an additional new term to mean millionbyte? Because the existence of mebibyte only makes 'mega' even more ambiguous. You used to be able to know from context.
Re: BLAKE2, an improved version of the SHA-3 finalist BLAKE optimized for speed
#18I'm not sure how reduced memory requirements are a benefit to encryption. Are there really any low end systems still in use today that actually have issues with memory usage? Even $150 notebooks come with 1 gig of ram. This seems more like it would help save ram on interception devices like the Narus Device or the huge datacenters owned by the NSA, which have a huge issue with storing all the data required to interce…
The last system where I used SHA-256 had 16KiB of RAM (and 128KiB of direct-mapped flash). Yes, memory use for security algorithms is important.
Re: BLAKE2, an improved version of the SHA-3 finalist BLAKE optimized for speed
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think of reduced memory requirements as a benefit to every application, including encryption. That's because nearly every application I use competes for memory; I also use memory as general storage media for stuff for which I want fast I/O and/or don't need to save permanently (e.g. mfs or tmpfs mounts). I think of memory as a precious resource.
That doesn't really apply to memory use on the order of a single kilobyte. You're not going to be hashing many different streams at once.
And why not? Ever considered a busy SSL offload device or VPN appliance?
A kilobyte here, a kilobyte there, and pretty soon you're talking real memory!
Re: BLAKE2, an improved version of the SHA-3 finalist BLAKE optimized for speed
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that it looks odd. However, especially in applications like cryptography, I think that removing the ambiguity of "megabyte" (i.e. do we mean 10^6 or 2^20 bytes?) is worth the introduction of a new term.
Do you mean an additional new term to mean millionbyte? Because the existence of mebibyte only makes 'mega' even more ambiguous. You used to be able to know from context.
I was referring to the "mebi" prefix. I agree that, currently, the old SI prefixes have perhaps been made slightly more ambiguous due to the introduction of the new prefixes. It is my hope that the computing community will eventually reach the consensus that the SI prefixes refer only to powers of 10.