Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:40:19 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <des@des.no> 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: <20120619184019.GA4692@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <86d34v40nr.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <201206191446.q5JEkJTY050836@svn.freebsd.org> <20120619161320.GA54109@FreeBSD.org> <CADLo838XD7uf798uaQhx6zAEP86QbqcKByZrn%2B5qn%2BTUyztT-g@mail.gmail.com> <20120619171726.GA72257@FreeBSD.org> <86d34v40nr.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 08:27:52PM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: > 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. This CPU vs. GPU particularity is something I wanted to know about, actually. Thanks for this piece of knowledge Dag-Erling, and sorry for the noise. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120619184019.GA4692>