May be a silly question, but I am really curious.

If a hash algorithm uses Base64 in the process of hashing a string for example, it is still considered a hash algorithm, even though it uses an encoding algorithm in it's process?


closed as unclear what you're asking by Gilles, e-sushi, Maarten Bodewes, Maeher, Ilmari Karonen Sep 26 '14 at 16:18

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I get the feeling that your question is poking at the surface of a deeper issue you're trying to understand. What's the context, and why is the nomenclature important here? $\endgroup$ – Stephen Touset Sep 5 '14 at 19:19
  • $\begingroup$ @StephenTouset I don't really understand your question... I just want an simple answer.. $\endgroup$ – Bpk7 Sep 5 '14 at 19:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I know of no cryptographic hash algorithm ever made that uses Base64 in the hashing process $\endgroup$ – Richie Frame Sep 5 '14 at 19:37
  • $\begingroup$ OTOT, many hash algorithms can be seen as operating in "base $2^{32}$" (or $2^{64}$). There's nothing that says one couldn't use base 64, it would just not be very efficient in software. $\endgroup$ – otus Sep 5 '14 at 19:50
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ It is very common to post-process a hash's result using base64, and the resulting algorithm could be considered a hash. If so, that resulting algorithm is a hash algorithm that uses Base64 in (the final phase of) the process of hashing a string. $\;$ That question has no clear-cut answer as stated. $\endgroup$ – fgrieu Sep 5 '14 at 19:54

If you had an algorithm that used a Base64 conversion as a part of its processing, that would not be considered grounds for disqualifying it as a hash function (be it a cryptographical or noncryptographical hash). We consider a function to be a hash solely on the properties it has (statistical in the case of a noncryptographical hash; preimage, second preimage and collision resistance in the case of a cryptographical hash); the components that make it up are not considered relevant.

Now, I haven't heard of any hash that used a Base64 conversion internally.


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