Re: Question about hashing algorithms
From: Unruh (unruh-spam_at_physics.ubc.ca)
Date: 08/26/05
- Next message: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: it is not"
- Previous message: bigzaphod_at_gmail.com: "Re: Question about hashing algorithms"
- In reply to: David Wagner: "Re: Question about hashing algorithms"
- Next in thread: Crypto_at_S.M.S: "Re: Question about hashing algorithms"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 26 Aug 2005 21:42:17 GMT
daw@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) writes:
>>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.
>What's wrong with overkill? (a serious question)
>>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.
160 bits = 20 bytes. What is wrong with a 100-1 ratio?
And security relies on length. If you ahve a one bit hash it is trivial to
find collisions and preimages attacks. the longer the hash, the harder,
other things being equal.
- Next message: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: it is not"
- Previous message: bigzaphod_at_gmail.com: "Re: Question about hashing algorithms"
- In reply to: David Wagner: "Re: Question about hashing algorithms"
- Next in thread: Crypto_at_S.M.S: "Re: Question about hashing algorithms"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|