Menu
I've noticed things such as
MD5 has been cracked for collisions and is no longer cryptographically secure; use SHA-1 instead. SHA-1 has been cracked for collisions and is no longer cryptographically secure; use SHA-2 instead.
From my current understanding, the chance of getting a certain hash h(d) from data d is equal for all hashing results. This implies, then, that the only strengthening mechanism for a hashing algorithm is to return longer hashes.
This also implies that all hashes (when not taking hash result length into account) are equally insecure to brute forcing, and that cryptographically broken only refers to quicker attacks other than brute force searching.
Is this true? What measures do modern cryptographic hashing algorithms use to prevent collision attacks?
753
Hashing gives a more secure and adjustable method of retrieving data compared to any other data structure. It is quicker than searching for lists and arrays. In the very range, Hashing can recover data in 1.5 probes, anything that is saved in a tree. Hashing, unlike other data structures, doesn't define the speed.
For digital signature applications, the security strength of a hash function is normally its collision resistance strength. When appropriate processing is applied to the data before it is hashed, the security strength may be more than the collision resistance strength (see Section 5.2. 3).
SHA-256: This hashing algorithm is a variant of the SHA2 hashing algorithm, recommended and approved by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). It generates a 256-bit hash value. Even if it's 30% slower than the previous algorithms, it's more complicated, thus, it's more secure.
Hashing is the process of transforming any given key or a string of characters into another value. This is usually represented by a shorter, fixed-length value or key that represents and makes it easier to find or employ the original string. The most popular use for hashing is the implementation of hash tables.
The statement "X hash function has been broken" means that there's a defect in the hash function algorithm such that a collision can be generated faster than via bruteforcing. Look at this post by Bruce Schneier - he says that a SHA-1 collision can now be generated much faster, that's all.
So yes, they are all equally insecure to bruteforcing, but that's not what "X hash function has been broken" statement is about.
95
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
