Werner Koch <wk(_at_)gnupg(_dot_)org> writes:
On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:17, wk(_at_)gnupg(_dot_)org said:
What do others think:
- Use SHA-256 and truncated to 200 bits
- Use SHA-512 and truncated to 200 bits
- Anything else
No opinions?
Considering these days I work with very small systems, I'm in favor of
SHA2-256 because in my environments it's much faster. Even if SHA2-512
is faster on larger systems, the clock-wall time still gives SHA2-256
the advantage when you compare 256 vs 512 on a 16MHz 16-bit platform
versus a 32/64-bit 2GHz platform.
I.e., it doesn't bother me if SHA2-256 is a fraction of a millisecond
slower on a large system, but it's tens or hundreds of milliseconds
faster on the constrained device.
Thanks,
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
-derek
--
Derek Atkins 617-623-3745
derek(_at_)ihtfp(_dot_)com www.ihtfp.com
Computer and Internet Security Consultant
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp