2
$\begingroup$

I can't seem to come across a clear and to the point answer. Is SHA-3 in the same situation as ElGamal and DSA, where it is modified slightly, or is the original Keccak submission the exact same as NIST standardized SHA-3?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

SHA-3 is defined by FIPS 202.

If you go to the team Keccak website you will read the following.

Keccak is a versatile cryptographic function. Best known as a hash function, it nevertheless can also be used for authentication, (authenticated) encryption and pseudo-random number generation. Its structure is the extremely simple sponge construction and internally it uses the innovative Keccak-f cryptographic permutation.

After its selection as the winner of the SHA-3 competition, Keccak has been standardized in 3GPP TS 35.231 for mobile telephony (TUAK), and in NIST standards FIPS 202 and SP 800-185. Consequently, it has received extensive public scrutiny and third-party cryptanalysis. [source]

Thus Keccak[1600] is the exact same as NIST standardized in SHA-3.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Does Keccak have that strange empty string that gets attached also? $\endgroup$ – Q-Club Oct 5 '17 at 13:54
  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand your question. $\endgroup$ – Biv Oct 5 '17 at 14:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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