Timeline for Streaming hash function
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:48 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://crypto.stackexchange.com/ with https://crypto.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Feb 8, 2017 at 22:42 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackCrypto/status/829460461947064320 | ||
| Feb 8, 2017 at 21:31 | vote | accept | Maarten Bodewes♦ | ||
| Feb 6, 2017 at 18:43 | comment | added | Maarten Bodewes♦ | OK guys, any answer that has a performance that does not degrade linearly with the amount of bytes hashed (or, more precisely, left out) is preferred over any other solution. | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 18:19 | comment | added | SEJPM | A potentially easier solution: Take Keccak and reduce the bitrate (ie the "new part" in each update) to 1 byte. This will force a state-update after every byte read hashed. Note however that this will suck really badly performance-wise ;) | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 17:57 | answer | added | Ella Rose | timeline score: 3 | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 16:58 | comment | added | e-sushi | As CodesInChaos stated: sponge construction would be the way to go. Looking beyond SHA-3, you'll notice "how much processing" can actually be adapted to individual scenarios - that is, if that makes sense and assuming you really know what you're doing. (Somewhat related to that: Can we exchange the permutation of a sponge construction?) | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 16:50 | comment | added | Maarten Bodewes♦ | @CodesInChaos Yeah, a collision resistant hash. A keyed hash would be a separate question. Interesting comment about the sponge, hadn't thought of that. It would of course require a full run of function F I suppose (this is the inherent weakness of the question, how much processing would I expect for each byte)? | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 16:47 | comment | added | CodesInChaos | When you say hash do you mean collision resistant hash? Or are keyed constructions acceptable? I think some polynomial MACs support absorbing smaller inputs. | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 16:45 | comment | added | CodesInChaos | You could just reduce the block size to one byte, which comes natural for a sponge, but Davies-Meyer with a small key isn't that ugly either. | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 16:41 | comment | added | Maarten Bodewes♦ | And no, padding each byte is not considered efficient enough :P | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 16:41 | history | asked | Maarten Bodewes♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |