Skip to main content
Make the title a question.
Link
Squeamish Ossifrage
  • 49.5k
  • 3
  • 118
  • 227

How would Keccak attain a 512-1024bit security level?

Changed mistake where security was accidentally replaced with digest size
Source Link

I am well aware that the general consensus is that a hashing algorithm with a digestsecurity of 1024512 bits is unnecessary, but I'm just curious about how that would be implemented for Keccak, even though it isn't necessary despite that.

According to SHA-3 block sizes / bitrate calculation?, the bitrate of the algorithm would be calculated by 1600 - 2c = r. However, with C being 1024, one would get a negative value, which I assume would mean the algorithm will not work for that capacity.

Am I wrong in my assumption? Are there any workarounds that would allow for a capacity this high?

Again, this is just a theoretical question to sate my curiosity. I am well aware that such a level of security is considered unnecessary.

I am well aware that the general consensus is that a hashing algorithm with a digest of 1024 bits is unnecessary, but I'm just curious about how that would be implemented for Keccak, even though it isn't necessary.

According to SHA-3 block sizes / bitrate calculation?, the bitrate of the algorithm would be calculated by 1600 - 2c = r. However, with C being 1024, one would get a negative value, which I assume would mean the algorithm will not work for that capacity.

Am I wrong in my assumption? Are there any workarounds that would allow for a capacity this high?

Again, this is just a theoretical question to sate my curiosity. I am well aware that such a level of security is considered unnecessary.

I am well aware that the general consensus is that a hashing algorithm with a security of 512 bits is unnecessary, but I'm just curious about how that would be implemented for Keccak despite that.

According to SHA-3 block sizes / bitrate calculation?, the bitrate of the algorithm would be calculated by 1600 - 2c = r. However, with C being 1024, one would get a negative value, which I assume would mean the algorithm will not work for that capacity.

Am I wrong in my assumption? Are there any workarounds that would allow for a capacity this high?

Again, this is just a theoretical question to sate my curiosity. I am well aware that such a level of security is considered unnecessary.

Source Link

How would Keccak-1024

I am well aware that the general consensus is that a hashing algorithm with a digest of 1024 bits is unnecessary, but I'm just curious about how that would be implemented for Keccak, even though it isn't necessary.

According to SHA-3 block sizes / bitrate calculation?, the bitrate of the algorithm would be calculated by 1600 - 2c = r. However, with C being 1024, one would get a negative value, which I assume would mean the algorithm will not work for that capacity.

Am I wrong in my assumption? Are there any workarounds that would allow for a capacity this high?

Again, this is just a theoretical question to sate my curiosity. I am well aware that such a level of security is considered unnecessary.