Re: Performance: MD4 vs MD5

Daniel Berlin wrote:
>>> If you want collision rates, see
>>> http://www.cs.duke.edu/~anderson/hashing/
>>
>> Seen it. What's your point?
>
> That MD4 is substantially worse as a checksum than MD5, for 10-25%
> speed, cryptographic or not.
>
> Why do we need this speed again, remind me?

We don't.

> Have you any data that we are spending a significant amount of time
> checksumming things?

Nope.

> Or is this just a waste of time/design masturbation?

Probably. I didn't propose the idea. I just disagreed with the assertion that
MD4 is a worse pick than MD5 in _this_ situation. So far you haven't presented
_any_ convincing evidence to refute this. Just a lot of web links that are
barely relevent and don't back up what you are saying.

But yes, it is a waste of time/design "masturbation".

> So why are you trying to imply i've brought it up?
> It's high collision rate compared to MD5 makes it not a good idea for
> our purposes.
> Even CRC-32 is a better idea than MD4.

And despite the theoretical higher collision rates, for every algorithm
mentioned so far they are still within acceptable bounds.

> It's very slow for sucking badly, too.
> At least MD5 is good.

According to Applied Cryptography its faster than every other hash algorithm he
lists in the entire book.

> Except that it sucks as a checksum function, too.

You have a mighty strict definition of "suck".

Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Apr 26 07:33:51 2003