On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 07:19:15AM -0500 Also sprach Jerry: > On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:55:14 -0500 > Robert J. Hansen <r...@sixdemonbag.org> articulated: > > > On 2/19/11 9:53 AM, lists.gn...@mephisto.fastmail.net wrote: > > > Think we'll see this included one day in OpenPGP, or will we just > > > skip to SHA-3 when it's ready? > > > > Usually, algorithms are added due to existing users with a strong need > > -- e.g., CAMELLIA came about because users in the Pacific Rim needed > > it. > > > > I'm unaware of anyone saying, "the SHA-2s are great, but they're too > > slow on 64-bit processors." And until there is, the odds of OpenPGP > > adoption are practically nil, IMO. > > Out of simple morbid curiosity, other than the time and effort needed > to adopt the code, is there any downside to this venture? >
I can't really see much downside, except, as has been noted, a possible lack of demand. I don't believe security is affected one way or the other. It's just a matter of a slight performance improvement on certain hardware. With SHA-3 so close on the horizon, though, I find it doubtful that a minor re-working of SHA-2 would gather much adoption. It somewhat surprises me, even, that NIST bothered with it. I suppose someone, somewhere, must be saying "the SHA-2s are great, but they're too slow..." or why would anyone have put the work in to extend the standard, as has been done? I think understanding this was the motivation for my original post.
pgpY8kpGwg6eU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
