[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: AH-MD5

Ran Atkinson says:
> Your performance measurements are sufficient to convince me that
> SHA could not be universally deployed at this time.  Major computer
> vendors are already VERY uncomfortable with the MD5 performance
> hit and have told me that they simply will not deploy anything
> worse than MD5.  Most vendors are currently fence-sitting about
> MD5 because its performance impact is very noticable.

Well, then so be it.  My updated results (reference C code for both
SHA-1 and MD5) on i486 gave about 1,000,000 bytes/sec for SHA-1 vs.
2,800,000 bytes/sec for MD5. So it's roughly 2.8 times slower.  I'm
sure hand-crafting the code would speed up both considerably, maybe
to the level of acceptability.

>   We need a solution that can and will be deployed today.  SHA
> is not that solution at this time, though it might be in a few
> years.  Hence the need for an algorithm-independent protocol spec.

Then why not fast and [marginally] secure MD4 just for now?

> As an aside, I have always found Hilarie's work to be VERY
> credible and so I believe her assertions apply to her tested
> platform as stated.

Well, in this case I request an explanation,  how software DES
was made to run faster than SHA. Plus the numbers, if you'd be
so kind. Unless of course Hilarie's remark was sarcastic, in
which case
--
Regards,
Uri         uri@watson.ibm.com      N2RIU
===========
<Disclamer>
References: