Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

GNU is Not Unix Programming

Skein Hash... In Bash 90

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the sixty-four-bits-required dept.
First time accepted submitter Matt16060936 writes "...Last night (err.. 3am this morning) I finished an implementation of the Skein 512-512 hash algorithm (version 1.3). I'm a fan of Skein and hope it wins the SHA-3 competition next year. One of the nice things about Skein is how quickly it's been adopted by many platforms and implemented in many languages. To that end, I present Skein 512-512 implemented in Bash."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Skein Hash... In Bash

Comments Filter:
  • bash? (Score:0, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13, 2011 @03:56PM (#37391050)

    wtf is wrong with you

  • by butlerm (3112) on Tuesday September 13, 2011 @05:58PM (#37392256)

    On the slowest 32 bit processor tested (32 bit, ARM v4, 75 Mhz), NIST benchmarked Skein using portable C code at just under 1 megabyte / sec. That is about twice as slow as SHA-2 on the same processor, and certainly slow enough that you might notice in the case you mention. On modern 64 bit processor (Intel Q6600, x86_64, 2.4 Ghz), more like 286 MB / sec for Skein, about twice as fast as SHA-2. See here [] (pdf).

    The striking difference between 32 bit and 64 bit implementations is much more than I would have guessed, but that may be merely a matter of optimization. For now it looks like a good excuse to use SHA-1 or SHA-2 when doing the sort of thing you describe on slow processors. For something like SSL or IPSEC, you aren't likely to notice the difference, because the bandwidth to a typical mobile device just isn't that high.

In seeking the unattainable, simplicity only gets in the way. -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982