On Oct 5, 2013, at 11:54 AM, radi...@gmail.com wrote:
> Jerry Leichter wrote:
>> Currently we have SHA-128 and SHA-256, >but exactly why one should choose
>> one or >the other has never been clear - SHA-256 is >somewhat more
>> expensive, but I can't >think of any examples where SHA-128 >would be
>> practical but SHA-256 would not. >In practice, when CPU is thought to be an
>> >issue (rightly or wrongly), people have >gone with RC4 - standards be
>> damned.
>
> SHA-224/256 (there is no SHA-128) use 32-bit words, SHA-384/512 uses 64-bit
> words. That difference is indeed a very big deal in embedded device
> applications. SHA-3 uses only 64-bit words, which will likely preclude it
> being used in most embedded devices for the foreseeable future.
Oops - acronym confusion between brain and keyboard. I meant to talk about
AES-128 and AES-256.
-- Jerry
_______________________________________________
The cryptography mailing list
cryptography@metzdowd.com
http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
