Best encryption algorithm ?

suntra

Hi everyone,

I just read a bit about encryption tonight and I was wondering, according to you, which encryption is the best one ?

I would tend to say SHA256...

But whirlpool is also a 128 character string... but I'm pretty sure length doesn't mean security...

I made a test :
http://www.nzau.ca/hash.php5

It uses all the available encryptions in hash functions... SHA256 and whirlpool are the longest strings...

Translation :
Chaîne : string
Algo[rithme] : algorithm
Longueur : length
Plus long : longest

I know, I know, I could have translated in English, but hey, French is my first language and you should see my coding, almost all in French, ahah !

laserlight

I just read a bit about encryption tonight and I was wondering, according to you, which encryption is the best one ?

I would tend to say SHA256...

SHA-256 is a cryptographic hash algorithm, not an encryption algorithm (though it can be used as part of an encryption process). Why do you "tend to say SHA256" is the best?

But whirlpool is also a 128 character string... but I'm pretty sure length doesn't mean security...

Whirlpool is a 512-bit cryptographic hash algorithm, compared to SHA-256's 256 bit hash. A longer hash does not necessarily mean a better hash, but it does mean a lower chance of a hash collision for reasonably good hash functions.

Weedpacket

Is "good enough for government work" good enough for you?

http://www.csrc.nist.gov/pki/HashWorkshop/NIST%20Statement/NIST_Policy_on_HashFunctions.htm

Regardless of that, an Advanced Hash Standard competition (analogous to the Advanced Encryption Standard competition that produced Rijndael) is gearing up to replace it (link on that page).

laserlight

Is "good enough for government work" good enough for you?

No, since that is your reason, not suntra's :p

Weedpacket

laserlight wrote:
No, since that is your reason, not suntra's

Which is why I asked :p

I reckon NIST to be better qualified at judging which would be "best" than anyone here (seeing as they consult with the NSA on this - I don't think anyone from the black box posts here (although they no doubt read the forum)) and they recommend SHA-2 over the others in that list (despite no doubt knowing about them).

So. NIST reckons SHA-2 to be the "best". Me, I don't: I'm totally unqualified to have an opinion beyond the one which sees me bow to NIST's better judgement.

suntra wrote:
It uses all the available encryptions in hash functions... SHA256 and whirlpool are the longest strings...

Um, not according to your own results....

I do have one point to make about that list. It's from the MD5 specification.

MD5 is slightly slower than MD4, but is more "conservative" in design. MD5 was designed because it was felt that MD4 was perhaps being adopted for use more quickly than justified by the existing critical review; because MD4 was designed to be exceptionally fast, it is "at the edge" in terms of risking successful cryptanalytic attack.

And that was fifteen years ago, after vulnerabilities in MD4 had been reported.

laserlight

I reckon NIST to be better qualified at judging which would be "best" than anyone here (seeing as they consult with the NSA on this - I don't think anyone from the black box posts here (although they no doubt read the forum)) and they recommend SHA-2 over the others in that list (despite no doubt knowing about them).

I note that NESSIE recommends Whirlpool in addition to the SHA-2 family of hash functions.

suntra

Weedpacket wrote:
Originally Posted by suntra
It uses all the available encryptions in hash functions... SHA256 and whirlpool are the longest strings...

Um, not according to your own results....

Sorry, I badly formed my sentence ! Should have been « It uses all the algorithms avaiable in the hashB[/B] function ON MY SERVER...

Thanks for the discussion 😃

Weedpacket

laserlight wrote:
I note that NESSIE recommends Whirlpool in addition to the SHA-2 family of hash functions.

As far as I can tell, NESSIE wasn't exactly spoiled for choice when it came to hash functions...
https://www.cosic.esat.kuleuven.be/nessie/workshop/submissions.html
No doubt it's not rubbish, but it certainly managed to avoid one of the major hurdles to being the "best" 🙂