question for linux fags
linux comes with built in support for a bunch of hash functions: MD5, SHA-1, SHA2, etc.
> $ sha256sum myfile.dat
> e2da5c9564759a6112e54d21e180210b907d7c2a4cb2f51c36b678848bd7883 myfile.dat
How do you use the SHA-3 hash function?
Other urls found in this thread:
pthree.org
packages.debian.org
rhash.anz.ru
schneier.com
m.cacm.acm.org
twitter.com
man sha
no SHA3 :(
> SYNOPSIS
> openssl dgst [-sha|-sha1|-mdc2|-ripemd160|-sha224|-sha256|-sha384|-sha512|-md2|-md4|-md5|-dss1]
Why would you want sha3 when you have sha512?
512 > 3
Why use SHA-3 in the first place? SHA-2 is the current recommended hash function.
SHA-3 is not more "secure" than SHA-2, it was just looking for alternatives to the classic iterated hash function algorithm.
From MD4 to SHA-2, every hash function works in almost the exact same way. SHA-3 has and all the candidates for SHA-3(e.g. MD6) use a different method.
There is no reason to believe it's more secure than SHA-2, in fact it might be less secure simply because it's been used a lot less.
The reason why there's no sha3sum utility or why the openssl cli utility doesn't support it is most likely because nobody uses SHA-3, anywhere.
Disgusting granny tits.
>SHA-2 is the current recommended hash function.
Because the NSA can CRACK it
nice try shill
>NSA cracking anything when they've basically circumvented everything on the planet
Or could you know
>beat it out of you
Why rob the penthouse when the mail room is on the ground floor?
And why do you believe another NIST standard, SHA-3, is more secure than SHA-2?
This algorithm with barely(compared to iterated hash functions) any cryptanalysis.
Who is the qt?
Naming it SHA-3 was a mistake, 3 > 2. It's not like that, it's more of a backup hash algorithm. In case tomorrow some cryptographer finds a way to completely break the classic hash algorithm.
As it stands right now, SHA-3 is not recommended for deployment and is just a cryptanalysis playground.
t. virgin
pthree.org
packages.debian.org
sha3 support in rhash 1.3.0 (all debian distros but oldstable): rhash.anz.ru
but as others have said, it's not recommended
>for linux fags
>linux comes with
>sha256sum is a gnu coreutils program
c'mon now, i'm not even the type to call it gnu/linux, but that's literally a gnu coreutils package, it comes with gnu, not linux
> is the current recommended hash function.
recommended by whom?
SHA3 is a NIST standard
man SHA-3
>SHA-3 is not recommended for deploymen
> recommended
kek
Cryptographers, NIST only defines FIPS.
Here's Schneier, slightly salty because he lost:
schneier.com
Here's Adi Shamir:
m.cacm.acm.org
Nobody has broken it, it's just cryptanalysis in progress.
I can't find any cryptographer to actually recommend using this over SHA-2, it's so new that you just can't recommend it.
SHA3 (Keccak) is supposedly faster than SHA2 in hardware, but slower in software. I wonder if it runs well on GPUs.
That user is sorta right though, right now in her prime she has a great body but when she ages those tits will fall harder and become sorta disgusting.
t. virgin
It does, ethereum uses a variant of Keccak to verify their blockchain. Which makes (according to ethereum devs) ethereum more egalitarian since btc was dominated by FPGA's. Im to lazy to source this, but I recently though of making my own mining rig using Atmega's SHA chips but then realized they use some variant of Keccak making that method shit.
> btc was dominated by FPGA's
is dominated by ASICs ;)