Some SHA-2 news
JPClizbe at tx.rr.com
Sun Feb 20 23:00:44 CET 2011
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:55:14 -0500
> Robert J. Hansen <rjh at sixdemonbag.org> articulated:
>> On 2/19/11 9:53 AM, Lists.gnupg at mephisto.fastmail.net wrote:
>> > Think we'll see this included one day in OpenPGP, or will we just
>> > skip to SHA-3 when it's ready?
>> Usually, algorithms are added due to existing users with a strong need
>> -- e.g., CAMELLIA came about because users in the Pacific Rim needed
>> I'm unaware of anyone saying, "the SHA-2s are great, but they're too
>> slow on 64-bit processors." And until there is, the odds of OpenPGP
>> adoption are practically nil, IMO.
> Out of simple morbid curiosity, other than the time and effort needed
> to adopt the code, is there any downside to this venture?
The downside is not just the time and effort to adopt and include this new
method. New code increases the risks of introducing new bugs.
Personal thought: With the exception of some much older SPARC and Alpha*, aren't
64-bit platforms usually at the higher end of the performance charts? Why speed
up there? If work is needed to speed up cryptographic functions, why not
concentrate on the cell phone/PDA end of the performance spectrum where it is
* - I'm sure there exist other older 64-bit architectures (MIPS, POWER,...). I
only included those which I regularly use.
John P. Clizbe Inet: John (a) Enigmail DAWT net
FSF Assoc #995 / FSFE Fellow #1797 hkp://keyserver.gingerbear.net or
mailto:pgp-public-keys at gingerbear.net?subject=HELP
Q:"Just how do the residents of Haiku, Hawai'i hold conversations?"
A:"An odd melody / island voices on the winds / surplus of vowels"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 889 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Gnupg-users