为了安全性，SHA512Managed是否被认为是.NET 3.5中最好的单向散列？ [英] Is SHA512Managed considered the best one-way hash available in .NET 3.5 for security?

问题描述

三个SHA512管理的相关问题：

1. SHA512Managed是否被认为是.NET 3.5中可用的安全性最好的单向散列？


2. Salt的尺寸应该与SHA512Managed一起使用？该应用程序适用于至少包含8个字符的强密码。


3. 对于小字符串，512是过度杀毒，而256为小数据字符串？
   

<解析方案

Sha512Managed不依赖于系统调用，并且具有内置散列的最大散列大小。如果你没有优化其他任何东西，它会被认为是最安全的。

为了密码破解的目的，盐本质上增加了密码的大小。虽然'越大越好'，但超过密码本身数量的任何东西都会被大量浪费。因此，对于最少8个ASCII字符的密码，您可能需要64位盐。

是和不是。对于现代技术来说是过度的;字符串的大小是不相关的。如果你需要你的密码在未来的100年内保持安全，那就去512.

参考：
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/security/Cryptography_NET。 aspx

Three SHA512Managed related questions:

1. Is SHA512Managed considered the best one-way hash available in .NET 3.5 for security?
2. What Salt size should be used with SHA512Managed? The application is for strong passwords with at least 8 characters.
3. Is 512 overkill compared to 256 for small strings?

解决方案

1. Sha512Managed does not depend on system calls, and has the largest hash size of the built-in hashes. If you're not optimizing for anything else, it would be considered the most secure.

2. For password cracking purposes, a salt essentially increases the size of the password. Though 'bigger is better,' anything beyond the number of bits of the password itself is largely wasted. So, for a min 8 ASCII character password, you might go for a 64 bit salt.

3. Yes and no. It's overkill for modern technology; the size of the strings are irrelevant. If you need your passwords to be secure for the next 100 years, well, go for 512.

A reference: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/security/Cryptography_NET.aspx

这篇关于为了安全性，SHA512Managed是否被认为是.NET 3.5中最好的单向散列？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！