Have you calculated how long it should take to test all 80-bit passwords? 
200-bit passwords? 2000-bit passwords?

Suppose that a good server can try about a billion passwords per second. How 
long do you think it takes to try all the passwords?


On 11 September 2025 12:18:00 CEST, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG 
<[email protected]> wrote:
>The simple integer division on the processor takes something like 40 cycles 
>(fast). Hence, the factorization challenge should have thousands of bits. Then 
>it is going to take millions of years for one processor to try all 
>possibilities.
>
>If the password is just 12 letters (80 bits?), then the time to test the 
>password should be longer. Or else the good processor would try all 
>combinations for a limited time.
>Of course, a longer password would help a lot, but even 200 bits is not 2000. 
>The check should be proportionally slower.
>It is especially a problem when we are dealing with predictable passwords 
>based on human language words.
>
>Maybe SHA-2/3 have not been developed with "slowness" as a goal. It may be 
>that only randomness was the target. Hence, so many assembler instructions for 
>one round.
>But only the slowness permits its use for HMAC or the password fingerprint 
>that you have discussed before.
>I could not believe that slowness is just a byproduct of randomness. It is so 
>evident why it is needed by itself (for some applications).
>Ed/
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas Bellman via NANOG <[email protected]> 
>Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2025 12:03
>To: North American Network Operators Group <[email protected]>
>Cc: Thomas Bellman <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: MD5 is slow
>
>On 2025-09-11 09:23, Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG wrote:
>
>> SHA-2 and SHA-3 are used not only for networking, they are general.
>> Hence, they were developed to be slow enough to prevent brute force 
>> for some other applications.
>
>Since you are asserting that the hash functions must be "slow" in order to 
>resist brute force attacks, could you perhaps give us an estimate of *how* 
>slow they must be?  And how you arrive at that (e.g. how much resources does 
>the attacker deploy, and how long walltime do you give the attacker)?
>
>
>       /Bellman
>
>_______________________________________________
>NANOG mailing list 
>https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/SZV2BS2WTBZIF5TOK43UQ4GYGNSB4QVX/
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/S3YL6WSDA3K2ZWEKYBOOQPRVAQSYYNJX/

Reply via email to