Likes Likes:  0
Resultaten 1 tot 2 van de 2
Geen

Onderwerp: Combining Hashes

  1. #1
    Kent Borg
    Combining Hashes
    Gast
    n/a Berichten
    Berichten zijn liked



    Thread Starter

    Combining Hashes

    Concatenating two different hashes, for example SHA-1 and MD5,
    apparently does not add as much security as one might hope.

    What about more complicated compositions? For example, a reader
    comment posted on Bruce Schneier's blog
    (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive...a1_broken.html)
    suggests the following:

    d1=SHA-1(data)
    d2=MD5(data)
    d3=SHA-1(d1+data+d2)

    The final digest would be d1+d2+d3

    (where "+" is concatenation)


    I admit I don't know why this might be significantly better than
    d1+d2, I was hoping someone here would.


    -kb

  2. #2
    Aaron Mizrachi
    Combining Hashes
    Gast
    n/a Berichten
    Berichten zijn liked



    Thread Starter

    Re: Combining Hashes

    --nextPart3139828.TSXPv0hb7d
    Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    Content-Disposition: inline

    El Vie 18 Feb 2005 11:24, Kent Borg escribi=F3:
    > Concatenating two different hashes, for example SHA-1 and MD5,
    > apparently does not add as much security as one might hope.
    >
    > What about more complicated compositions? For example, a reader
    > comment posted on Bruce Schneier's blog
    > (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive...a1_broken.html)
    > suggests the following:
    >
    > d1=3DSHA-1(data)
    > d2=3DMD5(data)
    > d3=3DSHA-1(d1+data+d2)
    >
    > The final digest would be d1+d2+d3
    >
    > (where "+" is concatenation)
    >
    >
    > I admit I don't know why this might be significantly better than
    > d1+d2, I was hoping someone here would.
    >
    >
    > -kb


    Having d1+d2 may leave some useful information in order to obtain a colliti=
    on=20
    more fastest because we can intersect these functions... SHA-1(d1+data+d2) =
    is=20
    relative better than d1+d2. I dont think that is really secure... d2 or d1=
    =20
    may leave some useful information. we need to study and probe that.=20

    I dont recomend something as: HASH(HASH(data)+data) until a research of=20
    propietries of that where investigated and mathematical proved. The better=
    =20
    method (i think) is: HASH(HASH(data)), because adds two layer... and have t=
    he=20
    same or more security than HASH(data). it's simple... if you use HASH(data)=
    ,=20
    you can obtain HASH(HASH(data)), and crack from HASH(HASH(data)) (if 2-ble=
    =20
    round hash is more weakness).

    A simple probe of a very basic crypto-system that isn't good idea have two=
    =20
    rounds are: XOR, the second round leave the original text. With one way=20
    functions may happen something similar.


    --nextPart3139828.TSXPv0hb7d
    Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQBCFsap1g9naXXPeA4RAsVRAKDFyXmWTNcPZpDRZGjumq 7B5Dq+UQCfWUtb
    xZOC613aiz+51ZdkYThcv7w=
    =WWOM
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --nextPart3139828.TSXPv0hb7d--

Webhostingtalk.nl

Contact

  • Rokin 113-115
  • 1012 KP, Amsterdam
  • Nederland
  • Contact
© Copyright 2001-2026 Webhostingtalk.nl.
Web Statistics