33 ms·

Isn't the main purpose of a hashing function to validate file (edit: or "message") integrity? so you want them to process as many MB/s as possible? I thought u

by 0x0 11y ago

Isn't the main purpose of a hashing function to validate file (edit: or "message") integrity? so you want them to process as many MB/s as possible? I thought using hashing to save passwords is misusing cryptographic hashes for something they were not intended to do? (Assuming they will keep the input secret as opposed to preventing finding colliding duplicate inputs?)

laumars 11y ago
Collision attacks is a non-issue with modern hashes. The point of hashing passwords is it's a one-way cither. ie can't be unencrypted - can only be brute forced or rainbow table attacked (the latter is where salts and peppers come into the equation). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function
- schoen 11y ago
  You keep defining "cryptographic" hashing as equivalent to password hashing, but password hashing is only one application of cryptographic hashing (a minority application). A hash function is still "cryptographic" and its applications are still "cryptographic applications" when they aren't password-related. Those applications commonly optimize for speed, rather than pessimizing for speed. In many of those contexts, the input to the hash and the hash value are presented simultaneously to the verifying party (or aren't even secret); in those contexts there is no benefit at all from making the cryptographic hash function slow to compute, and considerable benefit from making it fast to compute.
  - laumars 11y ago
    As per https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10012384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10012384: I didn't make that assumption. I exampled one use of cryptographic hashes as being for password hashing. An example is not the same as saying two things are the same. I've possibly expressed myself rather poorly, but I think quite a few people on here have made some incorrect assumptions about the point I was raising.

by 0x0 11y ago

laumars 11y ago

Collision attacks is a non-issue with modern hashes. The point of hashing passwords is it's a one-way cither. ie can't be unencrypted - can only be brute forced or rainbow table attacked (the latter is where salts and peppers come into the equation). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function

schoen 11y ago
You keep defining "cryptographic" hashing as equivalent to password hashing, but password hashing is only one application of cryptographic hashing (a minority application). A hash function is still "cryptographic" and its applications are still "cryptographic applications" when they aren't password-related. Those applications commonly optimize for speed, rather than pessimizing for speed. In many of those contexts, the input to the hash and the hash value are presented simultaneously to the verifying party (or aren't even secret); in those contexts there is no benefit at all from making the cryptographic hash function slow to compute, and considerable benefit from making it fast to compute.
- laumars 11y ago
  As per https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10012384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10012384: I didn't make that assumption. I exampled one use of cryptographic hashes as being for password hashing. An example is not the same as saying two things are the same. I've possibly expressed myself rather poorly, but I think quite a few people on here have made some incorrect assumptions about the point I was raising.