Slashdot Mirror
SHA-3 Winner Announced
An anonymous reader writes "The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has just announced the winner of the SHA-3 competition: Keccak, created by Guido Bertoni, Joan Daemen and Gilles Van Assche of STMicroelectronics and Michaël Peeters of NXP Semiconductors. 'Keccak has the added advantage of not being vulnerable in the same ways SHA-2 might be,' says NIST computer security expert Tim Polk. 'An attack that could work on SHA-2 most likely would not work on Keccak because the two algorithms are designed so differently.' For Joan Daemen it must be a 'two in a row' feeling, since he also is one of the authors of AES."
It's time to start building some new rainbow tables?
Congratulations to the whole Keccak team! I happen to know some of them in person and have all confidence that this is an excellent piece of work. True quality always wins in the end.
Out of all the ways a hash function could be vulnerable, not being vulnerable to a few of them hardly looks impressive without more context... But what do I know, I'm not a crytographer.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
...doesn't Keccak(*) sound a bit gay in Italian, Mr Bertoni?
Anyways, great job!! My security&safety uni exam is now even more obsolete :-(
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/checca
(*) prononuced as spelled, I've read the article
They were in crunch mode to get SHA-3 rolled out before Christmas so they could get cracking on SHA-4 as quickly as possible. Nice job NIST, even though we need this like we need a new UI for Windows.
According to the (extensive) benchmark data here, this is even slower than the previous SHAx.
Somewhat disappointing, when both Skein and Blake are about twice as fast, and appear to be perfectly acceptable from a security standpoint. (From what I have read anyway.) So, out of curiosity, what is the argument for keccak that puts it ahead?
Perhaps this secure hashing algorithm was chosen above the others because it was more secure than the others?
NIST have not yet published the details, but the press release is pretty clear concerning speed: HW implementations of Keccak are much faster than equally large/costly HW implementations of the other candidates.
Since none of the remaining candidates in round 3 where broken this is probably not the case. I think that the simplicity of the design (which makes analysis more easy) was the real reason. However we do not know yet since the report from round 3 hasn't been released yet.
Who would go out of their way to use a new and bleeding edge hash function, but not employ basic best practices like salting and key stretching?
Are you targeting hash function hipsters?
' For Joan Daemen it must be a 'two in a row' feeling, since he also is one of the authors of AES."
As someone who works in cryptography (no, I'm nothing like these guys, never will be) there are a limited number of people in the world qualified to design these algorithms. They are ALWAYS going to be the ones involved in the design process. Bruce Schneier is another person who is ALWAYS going to be in these sorts of competitions. There may be a new guy come in and an old guy go out over time but in general its going to be a select few people that have the type of mind to work with this sort of stuff.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
How can a strange Balinese dance perform better than SHA2 as a hash algorithm. I'm sure that hash had something to do with the creation of the Kecak dance, but not the cryptographic sort.
Sorry for the newbie question but should I replace:
INSERT INTO users SET username='admin', password=sha1('********')
for:
INSERT INTO users SET username='admin', password=sha3('********')
That is a strange criteria though, as 99.9% of the people using SHA3 and depending on it's security will use a software implementation. Practically the only people who deal with hardware implementations anymore are those trying to break a cryptosystem. Of course all the speed measures for the SHA-3 contenders (hw and sw implementation) are relatively small constant multiples/divisors of SHA2, so it really isn't a big deal from a security or convenience factor.
Looking forward to reading the final report.
I mentioned that Aesop said it best, when he said 'those were sour grapes anyways,' but I guess I got modded into irrelevance. I guess that's what happens when you frame the Chuck Norris of cryptography in a negative light.
(also interesting coincidence, AESop)
Security is only one of the factors. Speed is one of the big reasons AES was chosen IIRC.
All(?) Via CPUs have SHA and AES hardware acceleration provided by Via's 'Padlock'.
Users != uses. I doubt the NIST would consider the speed of HW implementations so carefully if it didn't matter much. Mainframes come with heavy-duty hardware crypto assists.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
The same holds for security processors in payment cards etc. They all have dedicated HW accelerators on board.
Feelow travel7ers? rivalry. While
Personally, I was hoping Skein would win; it was the most flexible and, in my opinion, the most innovative of the finalists. Anyway, congrats to the winner. This selection will hopefully make good hashing popular and widely-implemented (and therefore convenient enough that those in information industries will slowly adopt it).
despite the contaminated while At death's ddor schemes. Frankly
There are a lot of men, who do not understand why it is that women just love to spend much over one designer handbag. If you are a guy, who wants to make your partner happy,puma sneakers, maybe you can present her with a designer Hermes Birkin . But that is, if you are willing to spend thousands of dollars on one bag. Hermes Birkin bags and Louis Vuitton Bags from this brand can cost much. The good thing though, is that these handbags can be used for many years.
The fashion world is to flashy, one can easily be out of his way. Either I’m not a crocodile enthusiast or a worshiper of Mammon, I just want give those whom are looking for the great bag a bit of advice. Though buying a Hermes Birkin Bags is time-consuming and costly, pursuit of the beautiful and devotion to artistic beauty and refined taste could never go wrong. If you really love the bag, then go get it.
Life, bags can be said to be the most essential objects may be less, one of many occasions are very practical. Big this year heat agitation restoring ancient ways of the contracted flip style blew back, on the details of changes are also rich wonderful, contracted starched package form more suitable for collocation some skewed loading clothes, colorful brilliant color suits summer to use, and the material of restoring ancient ways and styles will be full of the feeling of early autumn. Thought that one day you will sell LV Meng Why? Hermes Bags Pulsion new series, really cute fur addictive. Summer, wanted to introduce a certain tendency to the freshness of a single product, but this new series Hermes wallet LV Lockit bag Pulsion is too cute, fluffy paste my face as people really want to rub rub. Will always be ahead of fashion trends,Hermes wallets beauty and love LV to the people not to be missed this Hermes Wallets bag nice and warm, the collection soon to move a single product for their fall and winter to prepare for Look! Hermes Victoria
Hermes Wallets
Ah, some decent achievement for Belgium.... Usually the nationallity is always mentioned in such achievements but noo, not in our small country. We do have a bit of a problem with patriotism :s
Not true, the x86 has a hardware implementation of AES ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AES_instruction_set
It's not unreasonable for hardware accelerators for SHA-3 to get embedded into normal microprocessors if it's cheap enough.
It was chosen because of speed on a variety of hardware (desktop/server CPUs, embedded, smart cards, ...), because it has very low gate/memory requirements (making it implementable on really small stuff), because it's secure, and because the design is very different from SHA-2.
The choice makes it clear that the last was an important criterion. When the SHA-3 competition was announced, everyeone expected SHA-2 to fall soon. It didn't, so likely SHA-2 won't go away anytime soon. However if it were to be broken, the replacement is already lined up.
Without that consideration, BLAKE was a clear favorite, IMHO.
I guess none of the people involved speaks Spanish, because "keccak" is pronunced almost like "'qué caca!" ("what a piece of shit!")...
http://ehash.iaik.tugraz.at/wiki/The_SHA-3_Zoo
But what a lousy name. I still say Blue Midnight Wish had a far cooler title. Yeah, yeah, I know, that's not what you pick hash algorithms for. But to judge from the number of skull-and-crossbones on the Hash Function Lounge, security has never been that high on the list, so why not go with the cool names?
http://www.larc.usp.br/~pbarreto/hflounge.html
Seriously, congrats to Keccak, although watch that inner permutation glitch.
http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/hash/sha-3/Round2/documents/Keccak_Comments.pdf
Hardware manufacturers especially like taking shortcuts that lower cost without lowering the illusion of security (even if actual security is reduced to bugger all).
My reaction is a variation of "Stop talking and take my money": Stop discussing this long enough to give me the code. Here it is: Reference and optimized code in C, from the article The Keccak sponge function family.
That is a strange criteria though, as 99.9% of the people using SHA3 and depending on it's security will use a software implementation. Practically the only people who deal with hardware implementations anymore are those trying to break a cryptosystem.
...and there you have the answer. *cue mysterious conspiracy music* :)
Coffee-driven development.
The NSA I am certain has been instrumental in any and all security and cryptographic testing and evaluation to ensure that they, the NSA can easily crack or decode the cypher text. Do NOT for a minute think that the winner has any leg up over the NSA experts. If it doesn't have a back door it will when finished. Any cryptographic algorithm is guaranteed to have some easy was to decode, otherwise the NSA is NOT doing their job. The only way to guarantee NSA non-involvement is get the algorithm from some non-aligned nation; Russia and China come to mind.