Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:27:52 +0200
From:      =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no>
To:        Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com>
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r237269 - in head: etc lib/libutil
Message-ID:  <86d34v40nr.fsf@ds4.des.no>
In-Reply-To: <20120619171726.GA72257@FreeBSD.org> (Alexey Dokuchaev's message of "Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:17:26 %2B0000")
References:  <201206191446.q5JEkJTY050836@svn.freebsd.org> <20120619161320.GA54109@FreeBSD.org> <CADLo838XD7uf798uaQhx6zAEP86QbqcKByZrn%2B5qn%2BTUyztT-g@mail.gmail.com> <20120619171726.GA72257@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> Maybe I don't.  I just want to know if I should switch from Blowfish to
> SHA512.  It seems that the former is quite popular judging from discussion
> link given above.  It also seems that des@' rationale for the switch boils
> down to "I vastly prefer sha512 to blf, as that is what the rest of the
> world uses."  If there's nothing wrong with Blowfish, I guess I'll stick =
to
> it as I prefer compatibility among *BSD to some weird Unix clones.  :-)

My understanding is that blf and sha512 are approximately equally hard
(or equally easy, if you like) to brute-force with a CPU, but sha512 is
supposedly less GPU-friendly.  That plus compatibility - but mostly
compatibility, to be honest - tipped the scales in favor of sha512.

DES
--=20
Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86d34v40nr.fsf>