3 ms·
nobody? This exact problem was a massive issue within the year. https://www.securityweek.com/hash-table-collision-attacks-could-trigger-ddos-massive-scale http
by throwaway64 14y ago
nobody? This exact problem was a massive issue within the year.
https://www.securityweek.com/hash-table-collision-attacks-could-trigger-ddos-massive-scale https://www.securityweek.com/hash-table-collision-attacks-co...
- masklinn 14y agoUsing a slower hash would make the issue worse (linearly): the collisions would still be there, but now each insertion would take even more time due to the extra computational cost of the hash.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- masklinn 14y ago> No, using a slower cryptographic hash would produce better distribution That absolutely isn't an intrinsic property of cryptographic hashes.
- JoachimSchipper 14y agoEDIT: parent basically said "use a cryptographic hash". You need some kind of random salt, too - it's not that hard to find a decent number of near-collisions even in cryptographic hashes. (E.g. if your hash table doubles in size whenever two keys end up in the same bucket, an attacker needs to spend O(2^n) operations to find two keys that agree in the first n bits, which will make you do O(2^n) operations and use O(2^n) memory.)
- dchest 14y agoUsing a faster cryptographic hash would be better.