Benchmark: sha1-js - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/sjcl/1.0.6/sjcl.min.js"></script>
<script 
src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/rusha/0.8.7/rusha.js"></script>
<script
 src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/crypto-js/3.1.9-1/crypto-js.min.js"></script>
<script
 src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/forge/0.9.1/forge.min.js"></script>

​x
 
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/sjcl/1.0.6/sjcl.min.js"></script>
<script 
src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/rusha/0.8.7/rusha.js"></script>
<script
 src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/crypto-js/3.1.9-1/crypto-js.min.js"></script>
<script
 src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/forge/0.9.1/forge.min.js"></script>
​
​

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("");
  }

 
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:

forge
forge.md.sha1.create().update(data).digest()
forge.md.sha1.create().update(data).digest()
native
crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-1", dataBuffer ).then(function (hash) {console.log(hex(hash));});
crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-1", dataBuffer ).then(function (hash) {console.log(hex(hash));});
sjcl
sjcl.hash.sha1.hash(data);
sjcl.hash.sha1.hash(data);
cryptojs
CryptoJS.SHA1(data);
CryptoJS.SHA1(data);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
forge
native
sjcl
cryptojs

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 23 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
forge	77285.7 Ops/sec
native	305089.9 Ops/sec
sjcl	0.0 Ops/sec
cryptojs	23879.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 4 months ago):

Overview

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks, comparing the performance of different libraries and implementations for various cryptographic algorithms.

Benchmark Definition JSON Explanation

The provided JSON defines a benchmark named "sha1-js". The script preparation code generates a random 1024-byte array using the window.crypto.getRandomValues() function and converts it to a hexadecimal string. The hex function is used to process the data and convert it into a SHA-1 hash.

Options Compared

The benchmark compares four different libraries/libraries-like implementations:

Forge: A JavaScript implementation of various cryptographic algorithms, including SHA-1.
Native: Uses the Web Cryptography API (W3C) to perform SHA-1 calculations directly on the browser's native cryptographic engine.
Sjcl: A small and fast library for cryptographic primitives, including SHA-1.
CryptoJS: A popular JavaScript library for cryptography, including SHA-1.

Pros and Cons of Each Approach

Forge: Pros: Lightweight, easy to use, and well-maintained. Cons: May not be as performant as native implementations or dedicated cryptographic libraries like Sjcl or CryptoJS.
Native (Web Cryptography API): Pros: Fastest and most secure way to perform cryptographic operations on the browser. Cons: Limited availability (some older browsers may not support it).
Sjcl: Pros: Small size, fast performance, and easy to use. Cons: May have limited features compared to dedicated libraries like Forge or CryptoJS.
CryptoJS: Pros: Feature-rich, well-maintained, and widely used. Cons: Larger size compared to Sjcl, and may not be as performant as native implementations.

Library Descriptions

Forge: A JavaScript implementation of various cryptographic algorithms, including SHA-1. It provides a simple and easy-to-use API for common cryptographic tasks.
Sjcl: A small and fast library for cryptographic primitives, including SHA-1. It is designed to be lightweight and efficient while still providing robust security features.
CryptoJS: A popular JavaScript library for cryptography, including SHA-1. It provides a comprehensive set of cryptographic functions and tools for encryption, decryption, and hashing.

Special JS Features/Syntax

The benchmark uses some specialized JavaScript features and syntax:

window.crypto.getRandomValues(): A function that generates cryptographically secure random numbers.
`Web Cryptography API (W3C)**: A set of APIs that provide a way to perform cryptographic operations on the browser, such as generating keys, signing data, and verifying signatures.

Other Alternatives

If you're looking for alternative libraries or implementations for SHA-1 calculations, some options include:

SHA-1.js: A lightweight JavaScript implementation of the SHA-1 algorithm.
Crypto-SHA-1: A JavaScript library that provides an implementation of the SHA-1 algorithm along with other cryptographic primitives.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be as performant or feature-rich as the libraries and implementations compared in the benchmark.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks, comparing the performance of different libraries and implementations for various cryptographic algorithms.

**Benchmark Definition JSON Explanation**

The provided JSON defines a benchmark named "sha1-js". The script preparation code generates a random 1024-byte array using the `window.crypto.getRandomValues()` function and converts it to a hexadecimal string. The `hex` function is used to process the data and convert it into a SHA-1 hash.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares four different libraries/libraries-like implementations:

1. **Forge**: A JavaScript implementation of various cryptographic algorithms, including SHA-1.
2. **Native**: Uses the Web Cryptography API (W3C) to perform SHA-1 calculations directly on the browser's native cryptographic engine.
3. **Sjcl**: A small and fast library for cryptographic primitives, including SHA-1.
4. **CryptoJS**: A popular JavaScript library for cryptography, including SHA-1.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Forge**: Pros: Lightweight, easy to use, and well-maintained. Cons: May not be as performant as native implementations or dedicated cryptographic libraries like Sjcl or CryptoJS.
* **Native (Web Cryptography API)**: Pros: Fastest and most secure way to perform cryptographic operations on the browser. Cons: Limited availability (some older browsers may not support it).
* **Sjcl**: Pros: Small size, fast performance, and easy to use. Cons: May have limited features compared to dedicated libraries like Forge or CryptoJS.
* **CryptoJS**: Pros: Feature-rich, well-maintained, and widely used. Cons: Larger size compared to Sjcl, and may not be as performant as native implementations.

**Library Descriptions**

1. **Forge**: A JavaScript implementation of various cryptographic algorithms, including SHA-1. It provides a simple and easy-to-use API for common cryptographic tasks.
2. **Sjcl**: A small and fast library for cryptographic primitives, including SHA-1. It is designed to be lightweight and efficient while still providing robust security features.
3. **CryptoJS**: A popular JavaScript library for cryptography, including SHA-1. It provides a comprehensive set of cryptographic functions and tools for encryption, decryption, and hashing.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The benchmark uses some specialized JavaScript features and syntax:

* `window.crypto.getRandomValues()`: A function that generates cryptographically secure random numbers.
* `Web Cryptography API (W3C)**: A set of APIs that provide a way to perform cryptographic operations on the browser, such as generating keys, signing data, and verifying signatures.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative libraries or implementations for SHA-1 calculations, some options include:

* **SHA-1.js**: A lightweight JavaScript implementation of the SHA-1 algorithm.
* **Crypto-SHA-1**: A JavaScript library that provides an implementation of the SHA-1 algorithm along with other cryptographic primitives.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be as performant or feature-rich as the libraries and implementations compared in the benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

sha1-js (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: forge vs native vs sjcl vs cryptojs

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

forge

native

sjcl

cryptojs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 4 months ago):