I was reading the Wikipedia page for SHA-256 (SHA-2) and came across the following statement:

For a hash function for which $L$ is the number of bits in the message digest, finding a message that corresponds to a given message digest can always be done using a brute force search in $2^L$ evaluations.

Why is this true? Is it some property of SHA-256 or am I missing something? I know that there must be a collision within $2^{256} + 1$ unique inputs, but I don't see why this would mean that there must be a specified digest from some list of unique inputs of length $2^{256} + 1$.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Strictly speaking, it is not even known whether SHA-2 is surjective. If it is not surjective, that means there are some digests which it never outputs, and so no amount of brute forcing would be able to find a primage of those digests. But SHA-2 is probably surjective because it tries to maximize entropy - it "should" produce all possible outputs with (more or less) uniform probability, given a randomized input, and if it is not surjective, then it fails to accomplish that design goal. You could interpret the quote to exclude such digests. $\endgroup$
    – Kevin
    Commented Nov 25, 2022 at 22:51

1 Answer 1


This is a lazy expression on the part of the writer. You are correct that if SHA256 is a well-constructed hash function (and we believe that it is) then trying $2^L$ inputs is likely to produce a preimage, but not certain to do so. To be precise if we have $2^L$ distinct inputs, we expect the probability of finding a pre-image to be $$1-\left(1-\frac 1{2^L}\right)^{2^L}\approx 1-\frac1e.$$ More generally the probability distribution $n$, on the number of guesses needed to succeed is given by $$\mathbb P({\rm guesses}\le n)=1-\left(1-\frac 1{2^L}\right)^{n}$$ so that the expected number of guesses is $2^L$.

It is often useful for "back-of-the-envelope" calculations to approximate the distribution with its mean and this habit has led to the writer making a technically incorrect statement.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.