On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 08:27:52PM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: > Alexey Dokuchaev <da...@freebsd.org> writes: > > Maybe I don't. I just want to know if I should switch from Blowfish to > > SHA512. It seems that the former is quite popular judging from discussion > > link given above. It also seems that des@' rationale for the switch boils > > down to "I vastly prefer sha512 to blf, as that is what the rest of the > > world uses." If there's nothing wrong with Blowfish, I guess I'll stick to > > it as I prefer compatibility among *BSD to some weird Unix clones. :-) > > My understanding is that blf and sha512 are approximately equally hard > (or equally easy, if you like) to brute-force with a CPU, but sha512 is > supposedly less GPU-friendly. That plus compatibility - but mostly > compatibility, to be honest - tipped the scales in favor of sha512.
This CPU vs. GPU particularity is something I wanted to know about, actually. Thanks for this piece of knowledge Dag-Erling, and sorry for the noise. ./danfe _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
