I am totally glad they went to SHA3.. Code: SHA3-224: 9B007304084D7E774543166149F11DA754418F12C0700FDF5A930859 SHA3-256: A1ED493B623FAADE09B6079A42E1D7B7726CBDABA1A9F17330CD2B3B5A46319C SHA3-384: 3B5473ED589A86B2A0BDF5375898B6631BE5C5AD5D7390032BAE47E9B03A7BD8D36C308D2CD2504C3AE1CE4EC223205C SHA3-512: 09BB0BC3A2970D256E015AB8A221581EBBF14FB36FCC8C520D0E17AA1A4CF08D45768B3184906A309C461CBC2502D91BD6B8BB4CE6197FBF02566584C9BB5DCE If they keep it up though, we gonna need wider message boards just to see all the hash!! and that makes me sad Spoiler ok this just freaky!!
Fine but as you once said before, SHA-1 is suffice for large files like isos no? SHA-3 might be good for files under 100MB...
SHA1 vs SHA3-224 has a pretty big gap between processing. SHA1 takes a split second, SHA3-224 takes about 8 to 10 seconds. SHA1 is still OK for uses now IMO (MS still uses it), it still doesn't have any dangerously close ways to make any collisions. When and if it ever does have simple collisions (probably will), I'd personally move to SHA2 (SHA-256), takes maybe a second or two longer than SHA1. Even SHA2 with Base 64 is fast. Code: SHA-256 Base64: wuQiaUWQDhVbLPYm/jszWh+10EuJosxtW9Qe5sexOwg= and looks cool! lol but really, even SHA-512 (Still SHA2) Code: SHA-512: fc4aaa641b9e8419fdd517c36bb3f6141fa242e58f6fdda594b05fbfb08de935bcb20eade51e0117612dbfc6ee18d7b5c495a59bfafdefe4042cac52c009a00b only takes a few seconds as well. I used a 150MB for reference.