3 ms·
> other hash functions that are not, like SHA-512/256 I think you meant SHA-224/384. Both SHA-512 and -256 are vulnerable to length extension because their in
by daeken 13y ago
> other hash functions that are not, like SHA-512/256
I think you meant SHA-224/384. Both SHA-512 and -256 are vulnerable to length extension because their internal state is dumped and resumable. With SHA-224/384, you only get a truncated state (from 256- and 512-bits respectively), which you can't pick up and resume.
- tveita 13y agoI do mean the hash function "SHA-512/256", as defined in FIPS 180-4 [1]. It is basically a version of SHA-512 that truncates the final result to 256 bits (Like SHA-384). It is not vulnerable to length extension, because unlike SHA-256, the final hash does not contain enough state to continue hashing. I wouldn't consider SHA-224 immune to length extension since it only truncates 32 bits, which is low enough to brute force. [1] http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/drafts/fips180-4/Draft-FIPS180-4_Feb2011.pdf http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/drafts/fips180-4/Draft-FIP...
- daeken 13y agoAhh, quite right. Sorry about that. And yeah, I agree on SHA-224; it's okay in certain circumstances (you're rarely going to be able to pull off 2^31 (average) requests), but it's almost definitely not the right choice.