Benchmark: Sha-xxx - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var data = new Uint32Array(1024);
  window.crypto.getRandomValues(data);
  var dataBuffer = new Uint8Array(data);
  data = String.fromCharCode.apply(null, dataBuffer);
  
  
  // src: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/SubtleCrypto/digest
  function hex(buffer) {
    var hexCodes = [];
    var view = new DataView(buffer);
    for (var i = 0; i < view.byteLength; i += 4) {
      // Using getUint32 reduces the number of iterations needed (we process 4 bytes each time)
      var value = view.getUint32(i)
      // toString(16) will give the hex representation of the number without padding
      var stringValue = value.toString(16)
      // We use concatenation and slice for padding
      var padding = '00000000'
      var paddedValue = (padding + stringValue).slice(-padding.length)
      hexCodes.push(paddedValue);
    }
  
    // Join all the hex strings into one
    return hexCodes.join("");
  }

Tests:

SHA-1
crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-1", dataBuffer ).then(function (hash) {console.log(hex(hash));});
SHA-256
crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-256", dataBuffer ).then(function (hash) {console.log(hex(hash));});
SHA-384
crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-384", dataBuffer ).then(function (hash) {console.log(hex(hash));});
SHA-512
crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-512", dataBuffer ).then(function (hash) {console.log(hex(hash));});

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
SHA-1
SHA-256
SHA-384
SHA-512

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of different hash algorithms on various browsers and devices is crucial for understanding their efficiency in various scenarios.

**Benchmark Definition JSON:**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for measuring the performance of SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512 algorithms. The script preparation code initializes a random 1024-byte array (`dataBuffer`) using the Web Cryptography API's `getRandomValues()` method. Then, it converts this buffer to a string by creating an array of Unicode code points from each byte.

The key function in this script is `hex()`, which takes a Uint8Array (`dataBuffer`) as input and returns a hexadecimal string representation of its contents.

**Options Compared:**

Three different approaches are compared:

1.  **SHA-1**: Measures the performance of SHA-1, which is an older hash algorithm widely used in various applications.
2.  **SHA-256**: Compares the performance of SHA-256, a more modern and widely adopted hash algorithm for security purposes.
3.  **SHA-384** and **SHA-512**: Evaluate the performance of these newer algorithms, designed to provide higher security standards.

**Pros and Cons:**

*   **SHA-1:** While it's simple and fast, its low collision resistance makes it less secure compared to newer algorithms like SHA-256.
*   **SHA-256:** Offers better security properties than SHA-1 but requires more computational power. It's widely used in many applications due to its balance between performance and security.
*   **SHA-384** and **SHA-512**: These newer algorithms provide higher security standards, requiring more computations than SHA-256 but offering greater protection against collisions.

**Library Used:**

The Web Cryptography API is used throughout the script. This library provides an interface for creating and managing cryptographic keys, hash algorithms (like SHA-1, SHA-256), and other cryptographic primitives in a web application.

**Special JS Features/Syntax:**

*   `getRandomValues()`: A function from the Web Cryptography API that generates cryptographically strong random numbers.
*   `DataView` and `Uint8Array`, `String.fromCharCode.apply(null, dataBuffer)`: These are used to manipulate binary data in JavaScript.

**Alternatives:**

Other alternatives for measuring hash algorithm performance could include:

*   Using a different benchmarking framework or library (e.g., Benchmark.js)
*   Compiling the same script with different compilers to see variations in execution speed
*   Comparing the performance of different programming languages or runtimes when running the same script

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_2) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/80.0.3987.106 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 80 on Mac OS X 10.15.2

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
SHA-1	223900.1 Ops/sec
SHA-256	255887.7 Ops/sec
SHA-384	248417.4 Ops/sec
SHA-512	236903.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Sha-xxx (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: SHA-1 vs SHA-256 vs SHA-384 vs SHA-512

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

SHA-1

SHA-256

SHA-384

SHA-512

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):