How should we succinctly refer to SHA-3 variants of specific width? The precedent set by SHA-2 naming is unfortunately ambiguous if applied to SHA-3. Specifically, we have SHA-0 and SHA-1 (160 bits), followed by SHA-2 (224, 256, 384, or 512 bits), where SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512 refer to the SHA-2 variants. SHA-3 supports the same bit counts as SHA-2, but a different naming convention is needed to distinguish between SHA-2 and SHA-3. SHA-3-224, SHA-3-256, SHA-3-384, and SHA-3-512 seem reasonable (if clumsy), but I can find no established naming convention of any sort.
2
votes
There are only two hard things in Computer Science...
- Michael Petrotta
We don't know for sure until NIST releases the SHA-3 standardization, it will hopefully be done soon. See csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/hash/sha-3/sha-3_standardization.html
- u0b34a0f6ae
Stack Overflow is a site for programming and development questions. This question appears to be off-topic because it is not about programming or development. See What topics can I ask about here in the Help Center. Perhaps Cryptography Stack Exchange or Information Security Stack Exchange would be a better place to ask.
- jww
2 Answers
2
votes
I believe they have been finalized as follows
"SHA3-224", "SHA3-256", "SHA3-386", "SHA3-512"
SHA-3 Standard: Permutation-Based Hash and Extendable-Output Functions
1
votes
There is no convention yet. Even the standard itself is not published AFAIK.
I'd use SHA3-256 etc. (like MD6-256).
Same naming scheme is also used in BouncyCastle library.
As for SHA-3-256 and friends, I personally don't like the idea of using the same char - in algorithm name and as property separator. If you necessarily need to keep the dash in algorithm name, I'd go with SHA-3/256 -- similar scheme is used in cipher transformation naming in JCA.
