4 ms·

There's 2 hashes here. Rainbow is non-crypto, rainstorm is proposed as a crypto-hash, requiring cryptanalysis. It's not claiming to be validated as a cryptohash

There's 2 hashes here. Rainbow is non-crypto, rainstorm is proposed as a crypto-hash, requiring cryptanalysis. It's not claiming to be validated as a cryptohash by SMHasher3, which tests statistical properties. You need (crypt)analysis to say it's a secure and trusted crypto-hash. This was developed a couple months past the NIST submission deadline for SHA3. Maybe your immune response was wrongly triggered? It happens. But what we really need antibodies against is excessive negativity and vague criticism, combined with attempts to justify the same with "you're not someone who is supposed to do that" gatekeeping. Could some of this be motivated by the fact that you want to do stuff like this yourself, but instead of doing so, or analyzing it, you just criticize it, inappropriately? I don't think you're trying to pick on me, just confused and powered by righteous protective instinct that is better were it more informed and discerning. Reflect some?

tptacek 2y ago
No immune response! Making new things and posting them is an absolute good thing. I'm literally asking, straight up: what's the use case for a hash that is "more secure" than an insecure hash, but "less vetted" than an actual cryptographic hash. That's all.
- keepamovin 2y ago
  Alright - if you want a strict use case for rainstorm in 2024 before public cryptanalysis: as a subject of cryptanalysis and experiment; as a way to make your name as a junior cryptographer attacking it. What other ideas can you think of? How about in a construct for password hashing? You can add more rounds to the loop to increase the cost like pbkdf1/2. For rainbow you can use it in place of whatever other non-crypto hash you have, especially if you want fast 128 or 256 bit widths.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Yep. Dunno. A question! It's the Internet, I get it, I'd bucket responses into "this is amazing" and "this is the worst" too. I have a more philosophical question here. :)
    - keepamovin 2y ago
      You would? That’s not what I’m doing: "bucketing". I always assume good, but look at everything closely, and call it out if I see it. I respond to what’s there individually. If you're trying to be friendly you got a funny way about it. What’s your philosophical question?
      - tptacek 2y ago
        The one at the root of the thread: "why would I ever use a hash that's slower than the fast, 'insecure' hashes, and isn't a serious cryptographically secure hash". This comes up a bunch!
        keepamovin 2y ago
        Rainstorm is serious, but not yet publicly vetted. Anyway, I thought that might be your question. You don't have any answers? If not...Oh well, you might have to wait until it gets analyzed a lot. Use Rainbow now without fear: fast, statistically great, and unlikely collisions - which makes most uses better. As someone else put it: "fastest 128-bit and 256-bit non-crypto hash, passes all tests, and under 140 source lines of code."
        tptacek 2y ago
        Why do you expect cryptography researchers to analyze your hash? That's maybe the question I should have started with.
        keepamovin 2y ago
        Probably is. Why do you not expect them to? I'm sure they will eventually, not too long. What's your big concern / lack of confidence here? In the meantime you can take care of it and nurture it by encouraging people to analyze it, using your influential voice for good.
        2y ago

tptacek 2y ago

No immune response! Making new things and posting them is an absolute good thing. I'm literally asking, straight up: what's the use case for a hash that is "more secure" than an insecure hash, but "less vetted" than an actual cryptographic hash. That's all.

keepamovin 2y ago
Alright - if you want a strict use case for rainstorm in 2024 before public cryptanalysis: as a subject of cryptanalysis and experiment; as a way to make your name as a junior cryptographer attacking it. What other ideas can you think of? How about in a construct for password hashing? You can add more rounds to the loop to increase the cost like pbkdf1/2. For rainbow you can use it in place of whatever other non-crypto hash you have, especially if you want fast 128 or 256 bit widths.
- tptacek 2y ago
  Yep. Dunno. A question! It's the Internet, I get it, I'd bucket responses into "this is amazing" and "this is the worst" too. I have a more philosophical question here. :)
  - keepamovin 2y ago
    You would? That’s not what I’m doing: "bucketing". I always assume good, but look at everything closely, and call it out if I see it. I respond to what’s there individually. If you're trying to be friendly you got a funny way about it. What’s your philosophical question?
    - tptacek 2y ago
      The one at the root of the thread: "why would I ever use a hash that's slower than the fast, 'insecure' hashes, and isn't a serious cryptographically secure hash". This comes up a bunch!
      - keepamovin 2y ago
        Rainstorm is serious, but not yet publicly vetted. Anyway, I thought that might be your question. You don't have any answers? If not...Oh well, you might have to wait until it gets analyzed a lot. Use Rainbow now without fear: fast, statistically great, and unlikely collisions - which makes most uses better. As someone else put it: "fastest 128-bit and 256-bit non-crypto hash, passes all tests, and under 140 source lines of code."
        tptacek 2y ago
        Why do you expect cryptography researchers to analyze your hash? That's maybe the question I should have started with.
        keepamovin 2y ago
        Probably is. Why do you not expect them to? I'm sure they will eventually, not too long. What's your big concern / lack of confidence here? In the meantime you can take care of it and nurture it by encouraging people to analyze it, using your influential voice for good.
        2y ago