Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions
valerieaurora.org
Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions
1–10 of 56 posts
Re: Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions
#2[deleted]
Re: Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions
#3Confession time: i still have some apps with salted md5 hashed passwords
Re: Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions
#4Why is SHA-2 orange? As far as I know, besides length-extension, there's no known weakness on the full hash function.
Re: Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions
#5Confession time: i still have some apps with salted md5 hashed passwords
You shouldn't be using any of the functions on that page directly, anyway: http://throwingfire.com/storing-passwords-securely/#notpassw...
Re: Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions
#6I think SHA-2 should be "minor weakness discovered" (if not outright "unbroken"), not "weakened".
At the onset of the SHA-3 competition, everyone was nervous about SHA-2: it appeared as though a good attack was inevitable, what with the cryptanalytic attacks on SHA-1.
But as the competition went on, things got calmer. The attacks against SHA-2 that were so expected simply weren't coming[1]. And so now the status quo is that SHA-2 seems pretty darn safe, and the real focus of the SHA-3 competition shifted towards not necessarily having a direct replacement for SHA-2, in the sense of performance, but instead having a design that was sufficiently different to not allow SHA-2 attacks to apply to it. And Keccak is just that: quite different.
Anyway, my point is that SHA-2 is mislabeled. Honestly, I think cryptographers recommend it the most out of any of the hash functions currently; SHA-3's software performance is rather... lacking.
[1] Some may argue that this is because cryptographers were focused on the SHA-3 candidates, but I'm not so sure
Re: Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions
#7I think SHA-2 should be "minor weakness discovered" (if not outright "unbroken"), not "weakened". At the onset of the SHA-3 competition, everyone was nervous about SHA-2: it appeared as though a good attack was inevitable, what with the cryptanalytic attacks on SHA-1. But as the competition went on, things got calmer. The attacks against SHA-2 that were so expected simply weren't coming[1]. And so now the status quo…
BLAKE2 is a very good alternative if you want software performance: https://blake2.net/.
Just stop what you're doing and look at scrypt, bcrypt or even PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA512 if you're thinking something that involves the words "passwords" and "fast hash function." (http://throwingfire.com/storing-passwords-securely/#notpassw...)
Re: Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions
#8[deleted]
Re: Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions
#9The "slashdotter reaction" column is priceless!
Re: Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions
#10Confession time: i still have some apps with salted md5 hashed passwords
The first step is accepting that you have a problem. Fortunately, it's fairly straightforward to fix the problem!
Previous discussion of how to handle this scenario: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2689149