blowfish

It's slower than CRC or MD5, sure, but it's slowness isn't a feature like blowfish's is.

As far as dangerous culinary experiences go, the risk if you get it wrong is up there with eating blowfish.

Use Blowfish in cascading ciphers with other strong one's such as AES candidates.

Serpent is the cipher with the score over 3.0 not Blowfish my mistake.

So is Blowfish if working around weak keys and rotating frequently.

Also created something similar a while back for fun, except for short text messages with the option for encryption in Javascript using an implementation of blowfish.

It was clearly blowfish you meant from the beginning.

On the other hand: there are still people using Blowfish because his name is on it, so maybe I don't feel bad blaming him.

Using a proper key derivation function like OpenBSD's pessimised Blowfish (with a suitable numbers of rounds), John the Ripper tries about 60 passwords per second on my hardware.

If you're trying to brute-force an 8-character password, you're looking at 141 cycles per password for SHA256 and 114,950 cycles per password for a single round of blowfish.

And no, that's not how real-world crypto attacks work; we don't use supercomputers to mount brute-force searches.† A 2015 recommendation for Blowfish is cryptographic malpractice.

It also has a block size that's too small for safety, which is why we don't use Triple DES or Blowfish as bulk ciphers either.

Heh, that reminds me of when the "Trillian" IM client advertised "128-bit blowfish" encryption, but used 128-bit DH to negotiate the key (this many years ago).

Well, in the more general case "huge symmetric keys" is a flag for "doesn't understand crypto", but 448-bit blowfish keys are the most common place I see this happening.

This is in the context of symmetric keys, so I'm guessing "huge keys" is a reference to the fact that "448-bit crypto" is a giant red flag because it screams "we're using blowfish".

Unlike bcrypt itself, battcrypt is likely to be implementable in scripting languages that offer native Blowfish.

Blowfish was a good choice at the time, and for some users switching away would cost a lot and give little benefit.

A single round of Blowfish, by comparison, takes time to set up the key and IV that SHA256 doesn't; bcrypt compounds that.