Re: Comaprison between MD5 and SHA

Kristian Gjøsteen <kristiag+news@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Tom St Denis <tomstdenis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Kristian Gjøsteen wrote:
gen_vlsi <jesuraj.vinoth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What if the message is more
than 2^64? What do we do in that case?

Break out the champagne, congratulate yourself on having huge computing
resources, then switch to SHA-512.

Let's see... my box (Intel Core 2 Duo) can hash MD5 at roughly 8 cycles
per byte (or so). At the current clock rate of 3.46GHz (yeah ...
overclocked) that's 412.4 MiB/sec. At that rate it would take my one
box 1352 years to complete.

That calculation is obviously irrelevant, since MD5 doesn't have an
upper limit to its input length.

This is also why we should all prefer MD5 over SHA-1. Faster, no input
length restrictions, designed by Rivest(?): What's not to like?

The fact that it is cryptographically broken?



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Comaprison between MD5 and SHA
    ... Break out the champagne, congratulate yourself on having huge computing ... resources, then switch to SHA-512. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Comaprison between MD5 and SHA
    ... congratulate yourself on having huge computing ... resources, then switch to SHA-512. ... Now what you do instead is hash fixed blocks, with random IVs on ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Comaprison between MD5 and SHA
    ... congratulate yourself on having huge computing ... resources, then switch to SHA-512. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Comaprison between MD5 and SHA
    ... congratulate yourself on having huge computing ... resources, then switch to SHA-512. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Xbox hacks
    ... > The issue isn't the sum total of the raw computing power of individual ... > massively parallel supercomputers special. ... > supercomputing resources!) ... not necessarily take that postion for diverse reasons, ...
    (sci.crypt)