Blake3 is faster and more secure. I also really don't trust NIST to be honest wh... | Hacker News

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

		encryptluks2 on June 24, 2022 \| parent \| context \| favorite \| on: Whatever happened to SHA-256 support in Git? Blake3 is faster and more secure. I also really don't trust NIST to be honest when they have a history of promoting solutions with backdoors.

oconnor663 on June 24, 2022 [–]

I'm not aware of any reason SHA-3 would be less secure than BLAKE3. Quite the opposite: SHA-3 has a very large security margin, so large that the authors cut the number of rounds in half for KangarooTwelve.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact