Benchmark: web-crypto - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

async function sign256(path, secret) {
  const encoder = new TextEncoder();
  const data = encoder.encode(path);
  const key = await crypto.subtle.importKey(
    'raw',
    encoder.encode(secret),
    { name: 'HMAC', hash: 'SHA-256' },
    false,
    ['sign']
  );
  const signature = await crypto.subtle.sign('HMAC', key, data);
  const hashArray = Array.from(new Uint8Array(signature));
  const base64Hash = btoa(String.fromCharCode(...hashArray))

  return base64Hash + '/' + path;
}

async function sign512(path, secret) {
  const encoder = new TextEncoder();
  const data = encoder.encode(path);
  const key = await crypto.subtle.importKey(
    'raw',
    encoder.encode(secret),
    { name: 'HMAC', hash: 'SHA-512' },
    false,
    ['sign']
  );
  const signature = await crypto.subtle.sign('HMAC', key, data);
  const hashArray = Array.from(new Uint8Array(signature));
  const base64Hash = btoa(String.fromCharCode(...hashArray))

  return base64Hash + '/' + path;
}

Tests:

sha512
sign512('500x500/top/raw.githubusercontent.com/cshum/imagor/master/testdata/gopher.png', 'mysecret').then(result => result)
sha256
sign256('500x500/top/raw.githubusercontent.com/cshum/imagor/master/testdata/gopher.png', 'mysecret').then(result => result)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
sha512
sha256

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/18.6 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 18 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

sha256

637K/s

sha512

619K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ sha256	636,698 Ops/sec
sha512	619,056 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

This benchmark compares the performance of two different HMAC (Keyed-Hash Message Authentication Code) signatures: SHA-256 and SHA-512, using the Web Cryptography API. The benchmark is designed to measure the execution time of these signature operations on a specific input image file.

**Options being compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **SHA-256**: This option uses the SHA-256 hash function with a key size of 256 bits.
2. **SHA-512**: This option uses the SHA-512 hash function with a key size of 512 bits.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

* **SHA-256**:
	+ Pros: Generally faster than SHA-512, requiring less computational resources and memory.
	+ Cons: Less secure than SHA-512, as it's more susceptible to collisions and preimages.
* **SHA-512**:
	+ Pros: More secure than SHA-256, providing better protection against attacks like hash collisions.
	+ Cons: Slower than SHA-256, requiring more computational resources and memory.

**Library usage**

The Web Cryptography API is used in this benchmark to create HMAC signatures. The `crypto.subtle` module is a part of the Web Cryptography API, which provides a way to perform cryptographic operations like key generation, encryption, and signing.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's provided by the Web Cryptography API. It only relies on standard JavaScript functions like `async/await`, `TextEncoder`, and `btoa`.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to rewrite this benchmark using alternative approaches, some options might include:

* Using a different cryptographic library or framework (e.g., OpenSSL, NaCl).
* Implementing the HMAC signature calculation manually without relying on the Web Cryptography API.
* Using a different hash function or key size for comparison.

However, these alternatives would likely introduce significant changes to the benchmark's design and implementation.

web-crypto (version: 3) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `sha512 vs sha256`

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

sha512

sha256

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

web-crypto (version: 3) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: sha512 vs sha256

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

sha512

sha256

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `sha512 vs sha256`