# Re: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm

*From*: bmearns <mearns.b@xxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:55:19 -0700 (PDT)

On Apr 30, 8:02 pm, Maaartin <grajc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 30, 8:26 pm, bmearns <mearn...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I've run it several times by hand now. First, I need to apologize for

being overly critical of the time it took the other algorithms,

because raking is not exactly a speed-of-sound operation.

I expected it to be slow, because of having to count up to eight on

the average for each card. But you do it once for each output letter,

which is not as bad.

However, I

did get noticeably better and faster with a bit of practice, and the

results still look very promising.

Give us some numbers, I'm curious.

On my last try, I finished a 26-card deck in about 4 minutes. It

should be almost exactly linear in time, so a 52-card deck would take

twice as long. Personally, I'm pretty satisfied with a 26-card deck in

terms of security: it gives just over 88 bits max for each output.

I'm working on setting up the code framework before I start doing more

testing, so I'll get back when I have more info.

-Brian

.

**References**:**Re: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm***From:*Maaartin

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm** - Next by Date:
**Re: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm** - Next by thread:
**Re: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm** - Index(es):