# Tag Info

1

There is a paper "SHA-1 and the Strict Avalanche Criterion." From the abstract: This work provides a working definition of the SAC, describes an experimental methodology that can be used to statistically evaluate whether a cryptographic hash meets the SAC, and uses this to investigate the degree to which compression function of the SHA-1 hash meets the ...

1

By all accounts SHA-512/160 is more secure than SHA1. The only question is it secure enough? If you are only worried about preimage or second preimage resistance the answer is yes. 160 bits should be sufficient for the forseeable future even faced against powerfull adversaries. If you need collision resistance the answer gets more complicated. There are no ...

3

You forget one little step of how Merkle–Damgård construction works; the padding, here SHA-1 padding: append the bit $\texttt{1}$ to the message e.g. by adding $\texttt{0x80}$ if message length is a multiple of 8 bits. append $0 \leq k < 512$ bits $\texttt{0}$, such that the resulting message length in bits is congruent to −64 \equiv 448 \pmod{...

0

It is as safe as SHA-1 was initially supposed to be. The same would be true of most other notable secure hash functions with digests truncated to 160 bits. Crucially, though, the security of the resulting algorithm is always limited to 160-bit pre-image resistance and 80-bit collision resistance. It doesn't matter how much higher SHA-512 or another hash ...

2

It's certainly better to move to a modern hash function without significant known weaknesses than to stick with one that is known to be broken. Furthermore using a larger state for the hashing process helps mitigate certain attacks, even if your output size is limited. In an ideal world you would make the system support longer hashes, but if the choice is ...

3

Generic collisions The generic collision attack on SHA-512 trimmed to $n=160$-bit will require $2^{80}$ complexity by the birthday paradox with a 50% success probability. The generic attack doesn't require any knowledge about the internals of the target hash function. It is about collecting hash outputs and looking collision among them by building a table ...

5

What is the need for further encoding the hash value? Representing the hash as a string of characters, without increasing the size too much. This is known as Binary-to-text encoding. It is commonly used for cryptographic data (hashes, ciphertexts..), because that can contain arbitrary sequences of bits (or arbitrary sequences of arbitrary bytes), and some ...

1

One hexadecimal digit is of one nibble (4 bits). Two nibbles make 8 bits which are also called 1 byte. MD5 generates an output (128 bit) which is represented using a sequence of 32 hexadecimal digits, which in turn are 32*4=128 bits. 128 bits make 16 bytes (since 1 byte is 8 bits).

29

a. No such double hashing doesn't do a bit of good. Anything which collides after a single hash will definetly collide after a double hash. It preserves all collisions and adds new ones. We might consider other constructions which may provide some strength e.g $H(H(m) || m)$ however: b. We have no need for any such double hashing of SHA1 as we have newer ...

Top 50 recent answers are included