Sam Trenholme's webpage
Support this website or listen to my music

Keccak: The best choice

 

November 1 2012

In today's blog, I discuss the Keccak hash, and why it was the best choice for SHA-3.

A brief history of SHA-3

In late 2008, all of the SHA-3 candidates were released. There were a large number of them; two of the four I liked the most became finalists: Keccak and Skein (the other two, LUX and MeshHash, unfortunately had security problems).

As the SHA-3 process went on, I became more attached to Keccak over Skein. Not only is Keccak the direct successor to RadioGatun, the algorithm Deadwood uses for secure random numbers, but also Skein runs like a dog on anything besides a 64-bit CPU.

Indeed, back in 2010, I expressed my preference for Keccak over Skein:

If I were to use one of the SHA-3 submissions for Deadwood’s PRNG, I would use Keccak. Like Skein, it can output a stream of infinite length from any input of any length. Unlike Skein, it is more 32-bit compatible; not only is there a 32-bit “reduced word length” variant officially blessed by the algorithm’s creators, but also 64-bit Keccak more easily scales down to 32-bits than Skein, since the only operations done are permutes, rotates, and exclusive ORs.

Keccak is the fastest SHA-3 finalist

As the SHA-3 process was approaching a close, the consensus on the mailing list was that none of the SHA-3 finalists was significantly faster than SHA-2. And, indeed, in software SHA-2 has better performance than all of the SHA-3 finalists (yes, Skein is faster on 64-bit systems, but it is a dog on anything else).

When the SHA-3 process was started, there were fears that SHA-2 would fall just like MD5 fell. Fortunately, no significant cryptographic attacks have been mounted against SHA-2. Coupled with the fact that none of the SHA-3 finalists have significantly better software performance than SHA-2, it was logical to choose the one algorithm which is head and shoulders faster than SHA-2 in hardware: Keccak.

While some of other SHA-3 finalists have better software performance than Keccak (Blake is remarkably fast, for example), Keccak still has good software performance. Until dedicated instructions for Keccak are added to CPUs, a sure thing in light of the widespread AES instruction support, applications where software performance is critical can continue to use SHA-2.

Since none of the SHA-3 finalists had better hardware and software performance than SHA-2, it made sense to choose the one algorithm that runs far better on dedicated hardware.

In order to reduce spam, comments for this entry are now closed

Previous entry Next entry Blog index