Question about hashing algorithms

bigzaphod_at_gmail.com
Date: 08/26/05 

Date: 26 Aug 2005 13:02:25 -0700

Are any hashing algorithms that are secure for short data and have
short signatures? As I understand it, SHA-1, MD5, etc. were pretty
much designed to work for any size of data. Sometimes that seems like
overkill, though. If I have small bits of data (say, a few kilobytes
or so) and I want to verify each chunk with a hash, it seems a little
wasteful to require a 160 bit hash that matches up with what might only
be 2K of data most of the time.

I have virtually no idea how the math works behind hashes, so this
might be a really stupid question... Any helpful response would be
greatly appreciated!

Thanks,
Sean

Relevant Pages

  • [Newbie] Advice needed regarding SHA0 SHA1 MD5
    ... SHA-1 has been broken. ... than the brute-force attack of 2**80 operations based on the hash length. ... This attack builds on previous attacks on SHA-0 and SHA-1, and is a major, ... We wondered if storing passwords hashed as MD5 was safe. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: which hash function is secure?
    ... SHA-1 is still more secure than MD5 would have been if it had been ... SHA-1 still seems reasonably OK, but I'd seriously consider moving to ... to do that for, say, a MAC that's added to every packet I transmit. ... even 128) bits of SHA-2 as your hash? ...
    (comp.security.misc)
  • Re: [HACKERS] Postgres: pg_hba.conf, md5, pg_shadow, encrypted passwords
    ... MD5 is no longer strong enough for protecting secrets. ... SHA-1 is a faster brute force because SHA-1 is a faster ... Using SHA-1 to hash a password, ...
    (Bugtraq)
  • Re: SHA-1 broken
    ... A Chinese research group now says that collisions can be found in the full ... SHA-1 in 2**69 hash operations, much less than the brute-force attack of ... 2**80 operations based on the hash length. ... MD5 was cracked. ...
    (Bugtraq)
  • Re: Rand generator (MD5)
    ... My micro cannot handle anything more than 32 bits! ... YOu do not have MD5. ... It does not sound to me like your hash implimentation is very ... void byteReverse(unsigned char *buf, unsigned longs); ...
    (sci.crypt)