From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C1221396D9 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 22:20:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 69620E0DA7; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 22:20:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-it0-x22a.google.com (mail-it0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 132C1E0D97 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 22:20:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id o135so11514967itb.0 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:20:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=x+n4O0msGjEkTkQkyJW9PsmhqGqkq7eL+0z/kwG8Hr0=; b=dSAv6aLCP4pTm2p1DqvFq6SvgfCcHafE0MA85mkWZHJ5z4Cp2XHzibljCukwIt9wj5 EqeQMbaRY8JXEgY+PXObGliayaFFnCRoUQvvNS3ZRcPNoN2Q4BBf5uJ2C1QCK+VRZ17p 6g7WSIrmOc1KJ7eY97tfqTB1hvQe5/QMS/4gs/N+JkPl4mSmxMR3tuyo9qUMkN6t77gn 0OuzZkmi9RV8KKxxowoPn28XKs7NziBMeiGlC6F8vOWDMNJZHOPg8uzJiFDR6cVKVPIz d2P5hQ6+oG9BGMaeWqC9Wi+s4JjT649DaUB5j9svWLl1KQ1I9oRd5iTZzKUGM3nJ2Jxn 1KZQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=x+n4O0msGjEkTkQkyJW9PsmhqGqkq7eL+0z/kwG8Hr0=; b=Cymse+fmQb7NDS7npGobwNURDg52QPb61XY4+Z1b2E5w9nKr6f/T+zJNDNhXwFBMUP neY8oM4SUwtPdGcZ4Fd18TdtSh+3q2gQ4x95HLCTqqlknELmoQ9xPYi8zA6e6rpUvqrL FMoz+9kMAOFNVJXzjbMD7sxS3seVFcu9ue8erEhSmbjztB8G+vXypigCTq8/WutuhNUe 3ZKeOe6wz2PDVPMyWAsUvRasEqhwd2ofw+o1nABceZTfVmJgbTpVXHGO3IgHmMVGU8K5 bdTDhwWpA6jE4BFIT2PtHIwsuvhCnhdNfG0Z8g+x9o1RqOVfI+oqzoucek1jKuOzO/pN qUCA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaWdnTihzdBmzV9M11/Tc9L3OUJGamactceL1aDavoGAI3/p4h/Y 45l8XdsFmE43dqyCVFfshXSY9Ot5E3ZCFKymimaEJupa X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+QZtJAVZKjx3u6nQYaTcgB8RvHWH45cx3s5yIblToZGlAZcD75gM9oRn9K5jo2hwRGcUt3D2tfuXDpuSNMfgt4= X-Received: by 10.36.121.150 with SMTP id z144mr4723755itc.28.1508451615773; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:20:15 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.8.140 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:20:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1508446837.29653.1.camel@gentoo.org> References: <1508440120.19870.14.camel@gentoo.org> <1508446837.29653.1.camel@gentoo.org> From: Francesco Riosa Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 00:20:15 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Manifest2 hashes, take n+1-th To: gentoo development Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114a9760b81a01055bedc243" X-Archives-Salt: ed4b16d3-7340-4a7e-9129-97bd78597fc7 X-Archives-Hash: 2b6b8c0fc0aaf0b4a750b1f5108d9491 --001a114a9760b81a01055bedc243 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2017-10-19 23:00 GMT+02:00 Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny : > W dniu czw, 19.10.2017 o godzinie 21=E2=88=B608 +0200, u=C5=BCytkownik Mi= cha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny > napisa=C5=82: > > > > 4. The new hashes that are stronger and commonly available are > > SHA3/Keccak (using sponges) and BLAKE2 (HAIFA). Both are diverse from > > our current algorithms, so either is a good candidate. The choice of > > Keccak is purely arbitrary (because it's the winner?). > > > > Actually, a small correction here: we support more implementations > of SHA3 than BLAKE2, so the first one is less problematic for us. > Not researched in depth but: B2sum provided by coreutils is quite satisfacting*, it's pretty fast, while sha-3 is deemed to be slower than sha-2, maybe this could be weighted while choosing the algorithm wanted. Both seem to take advantage of modern multicore CPUs but sha-3 does 11.7 [cpb]#0 (see #1) while an email seen on the internet say blake2 can reach 1 [cpb] (see #2) #0 cpb =3D cpu cycles per byte #1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-3#Speed #2 http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2016-May/029297.html * (in my limited experience) --001a114a9760b81a01055bedc243 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2017-10-19 23:00 GMT+02:00 Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny <= ;mgorny@gentoo.org>:
W dniu = czw, 19.10.2017 o godzinie 21=E2=88=B608=E2=80=89+0200, u=C5=BCytkownik Mic= ha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny
napisa=C5=82:
>
> 4. The new hashes that are stronger and commonly available are
> SHA3/Keccak (using sponges) and BLAKE2 (HAIFA). Both are diverse from<= br> > our current algorithms, so either is a good candidate. The choice of > Keccak is purely arbitrary (because it's the winner?).
>

Actually, a small correction here: we support more implementations of SHA3 than BLAKE2, so the first one is less problematic for us.

Not researched in depth but:B2sum provided by coreutils is quite satisfacting*, it's pretty fast,= while sha-3 is deemed to be slower than sha-2, maybe this could be weighte= d while choosing the algorithm wanted.

Both seem to take advantage o= f modern multicore CPUs but sha-3 does 11.7 [cpb]#0 (see #1) while an email= seen on the internet say blake2 can reach 1 [cpb] (see #2)

#0 cpb = =3D cpu cycles per byte
#1=C2=A0https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-3#Speed
#2=C2=A0http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2016-May/029297.html* (in my limited experience)
--001a114a9760b81a01055bedc243--