On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 03:53:53PM +0000, Dave Howe wrote: > I wasn't aware that FPGA technology had improved that much if any - feel > free to correct my misapprehension in that area though :)
FPGAs are too slow (and too expensive), if you want lots of SHA-1 performance,
use a crypto processor (or lots of forthcoming C5J mini-ITX boards), or an
ASIC.
Assuming, fast SHA-1 computation is the basis for the attack -- we do not
know that.
While looking, came across
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/02jul/slides/saag-1.pdf
"We really DO NOT need SHA-256 for Message Authentication", mid-2002.
--
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net
pgpiyYiZfRHUC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
