hasfunctions need not encrypt their data?
From: Immanuel Scholz (einwegadresse_at_gmx.de)
Date: 02/11/04
- Next message: Mike Burns: "Re: New AOL Instant Messenger virus/trojan???"
- Previous message: Michael: "Re: New AOL Instant Messenger virus/trojan???"
- Next in thread: Barry Margolin: "Re: hasfunctions need not encrypt their data?"
- Reply: Barry Margolin: "Re: hasfunctions need not encrypt their data?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 11 Feb 2004 06:55:07 -0800
Hi group,
I just visited my final security related lesson at my university and
there are still some question left. ;-)
The most urgent:
Most papers, as example rfc2246 (TLS-Standard) or papers about HMAC's
refers to hash functions. The requirements for theses functions are
stated as collision free, means, "no two inputs can be found that
hashes to the same value".
But nowhere stated anything about "you may not reconstruct any
information of the original data from only looking at the hash value."
Is this a must requirement for each hash function? I do not think so.
I KNOW this is not a requirement for collision free, since you can
construct a collision free hash function that does not respect the
second sentence, if you have any collision free hash function by
simple concatenating pieces of the original message to the hash.
So why there is no written requirement that "hash functions must
encrypt their data they operate on"? Ok, most widely used Hashes like
MD5 or SHA are (hopefully?) secure about retrieving any original data
from the hash.
These features of hashes are used widely too - as example TLS uses
hashes as a pseudo random generator and it would be fatality if you
can easily reconstruct the seed from any part of the random string.
So why it is not explicitly a stated requirement for hash functions in
this scenarios?
Ciao, Imi.
PS: Can you please send carbon copy of answers to
"einwegadresse@gmx.de"? I do not recently check google-groups. ;)
PPS: Sorry for my bad english
- Next message: Mike Burns: "Re: New AOL Instant Messenger virus/trojan???"
- Previous message: Michael: "Re: New AOL Instant Messenger virus/trojan???"
- Next in thread: Barry Margolin: "Re: hasfunctions need not encrypt their data?"
- Reply: Barry Margolin: "Re: hasfunctions need not encrypt their data?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|