1
$\begingroup$

This question already has an answer here:

I want to guarantee the integrity of a message $m$. My first thought is to append the message to an integrity key $k$ and hash it as $H(k\,||\,m)$. However, I have been told that this is not totally secure, because an attacker can add more data to the end of $m$ while still generating the correct MAC.

How is it possible for an attacker to modify $H(k\,||\,m)$ such that the message is changed but the MAC is the same?

I was advised to use HMAC instead. Why does HMAC solve this problem?

$\endgroup$

marked as duplicate by otus, SEJPM, Biv, Community Nov 17 '16 at 14:59

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • $\begingroup$ This is a great question. $\endgroup$ – rustyMagnet Jan 7 at 15:48
3
$\begingroup$

It depends on the hash function you're using, but some hash functions work like repeated block ciphers (SHA1 and MD5, for example). The point is (as you've been told), an attacker can use the hash and continue appending data to generate a new and valid MAC.

That is, given $H(k||m)$, a valid MAC for $k||m$, an attacker can generate $H(k||m||m')$, a valid MAC for $k||m||m'$. This is undesirable behavior. We want to avoid the possibility of an attacker generating a valid MAC for any message, even if they don't know the key. This is why it invalidates integrity, because now an attacker can make valid messages and MACs (with limitations) when they don't know the key.

See Length extension attacks.

$\endgroup$

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