SHA-512 vs Whirlpool?

four0four · 12-15-2009, 09:37 PM

I'm using the following to create a password hash:

Code:

$password = hash('sha512',$pass . $salt);

but when choosing SHA-512 over Whirlpool, is one better than the other?

Thanks!

four0four · 12-17-2009, 07:31 PM

I'm using a random password and salt to create the hash, so maybe it doesn't matter which one I use?

laresistance2 · 10-04-2011, 01:37 PM

Sorry to back this topic but this question interests me also.
I await your answers.

Inigoesdr · 10-04-2011, 04:54 PM

I haven't seen any evidence that one is a clear winner in terms of security. Using a salted string with both should produce a very secure hash. Whirlpool is newer & not used as much(in my experience) and SHA512 is generated faster, so I would go with SHA512. You could definitely argue that the difference is negligible, though, from what I've read.

hinch · 10-04-2011, 04:56 PM

be wary if your application links to other languages specifically passing hashes to c# apps for decryption there's padding issues to be had since php and .net handle byte padding differently.