Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

6

The main thing that makes HMAC secure in typical use even with MD5 is that it is used with a secret key. That means only preimage attacks are really relevant, since finding a collision is always an online attack if you don't know the key. With known attacks the preimage resistance of both MD5 and SHA-1 is > 100 bits. Additionally, HMAC may be secure even ...


5

You can't say SHA-2 has a security level of half its hash length without any given context. 128 bit against what type of attack? What is the attacker trying to do? Perform a collision? Ok yes it has 128 bit against collisions. Perform a preimage? Nope it has 256 bit security against preimage attacks. Any algorithm is considered n bit strength if the ...


4

There is no known exploitable relationships between the words (32/64 bit "chunks") of SHA-2 but this is always a source of cryptanalysis. There are some academic weaknesses against reduced round variants of SHA-2 but nothing against the full cipher. Still hashes are cheap so why not just use multiple hash functions? Seed = HASH(secret) <- This should ...


3

I'm not aware of any attacks on SHA-512 this way. I would create a small function to validate that the input size to SHA-512 is indeed identical to the seed size though, just in case. Even without that the function should be secure. Kind of related is my question about KDF1 and KDF2. Note that implementation of HKDF-expand from a hash should be pretty easy, ...


3

I know SHAKE128 and 256 are part of the SHA-3 standard but is the SHA3 standard officially released yet? i can only find a draft of the publication, does this mean it's not official and therefor not proven to be secure? No, SHA-3 has not been formally approved. On the other hand, what do you mean "not proved to be secure"? Do you really thing that ...


2

There is none. Conjunctive normal form is for Boolean formulas, which have a single truth value. SHA-256 is not a Boolean formula (SHA-256(x) is not "true" or "false.") Furthermore, CNF is only applicable if you have a fixed number of variables; this is not true for SHA-256, which has variable-length input. At best you could have 256 different formulas, each ...


2

Actually, it's there on the list, just with a different name -- the approved algorithm you want is listed as "SHS" (Secure Hashing Standard). Now, the term "SHS" doesn't distinguish between the various flavors of SHA-2 (and SHA-1, which is still approved for some uses); however if you look at this more detailed list, that gives details on what vendors have ...


2

So your idea is to effectively turn the password authentication into a key-based authentication by deriving the machine passwords from a single random key stored elsewhere. Assuming key storage is secure (probably encrypted with a strong password), this is sound. It would be better to just use the asymmetric key-based authentication built into most remote ...


2

I would use HMAC-SHA256. While poncho's answer that both are secure is reasonable, there are several reasons I would prefer to use SHA-256 as the hash: Attacks only get better. SHA-1 collision resistance is already broken, so it's not impossible that other attacks will also be possible in the future. It allows you to depend on just one hash function, ...


2

SipHash doesn't claim to be a secure hash function. Only a secure MAC. So if you try to use it as a hash function, with a constant, public key, you are on your own. SHA-512/64 should be a "secure" 64-bit hash, which is of course not enough for a truly secure hash, since it only has 32-bit collision resistance. However, since you only desire preimage ...


1

A quick resarch showed that there are no (good) attacks on Siphash. For SHA-512 there are defintely no known attacks. The first 64 bits of SHA-512 should have the same security guarantees as full SHA-512 has. So breaking any of the two comes down to how fast they are. SHA-512 is slower, in particular it achieves 192.5 cycles / byte in a 64-bit C ...


1

It depends. If you have full control over the whole system, all components and can use whatever algorithm you want to deploy, you can stick to the one giving you the best efficiency which fulfills your security requirements. In this case, it would be Tiger. However, Tiger has a 192 bit output. If that is not enough for you, go for SHA256. However, if the ...


1

It is extremely likely to be either RSA with PSS padding or RSA with PKCS#1 v1.5 padding, the latter being the most likely. If you sign two times and the output is twice the same then it is not PSS and PKCS#1 v1.5 would be the prime suspect (that was my brain making fun of me, pun not intended). RSASSA-PSS is different from other RSA-based signature ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible