Is it possible to optimise the function:
MD5_Update(&ctx_d, buf, num);
if you know that buf contains only zeros?
Or is this mathematically impossible?
Likewise for SHA1.
If you control the input of the hash function then you could use a simple count instead of all the zero's, maybe using some kind of escape. E.g. 000020 in hex could mean 32 zero's. A (very) basic compression function may be much faster than MD5 or SHA1.
Obviously this solution will only be faster if you save one or more blocks of hash calculations. E.g. it does not matter if you hash 3 bytes or 16 bytes, as the input will be padded and expanded by the hash function before it is used.
Cryptographic hashes are actually supposed to produce significant changes in output for small changes in input, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalanche_effect . It sounds like you're looking for some relationship between some hashed data, and some hashed data pre-padded with zeros. By design this change in your input should produce output that isn't clearly related.
EDIT: To answer your question directly, by design "a small change in either the key or the plaintext should cause a drastic change in the ciphertext" which means it's meant to be mathematically difficult to do.
You'd probably get some speedup, but it'd be relatively minor. The most important thing for high performance hashing is choosing an optimized implementation, and to use GPUs(or even FPGA/ASIC) to exploit parallelism if that's possible.
There is a known speedup for SHA-1 with fixed IV and messages that differ only a little. That speedup is around 21%. See New attack makes some password cracking faster - Ars Technica.
You might get a similar speedup when you have a completely fixed message but a variable IV. But it'd be a lot of work to implement this, especially as a non expert. Buying additional hardware is probably much cheaper than speeding up your code a few percent.
If the beginning of your message consists of multiple constant blocks, you can hash them once, and cache the intermediate state of the hashfunction. Might or might not be applicable to your situation.
Related
have anyone proved or tested that whether or not MD5 collision may happen for data with fixed length of 18 bytes ?
i.e. can I construct two arrays(18 bytes length) with same MD5?
thanks!
Considering that MD5 has a length of 16 bytes... yes, 18 byte values are guaranteed to collide eventually.
But it's the wrong question to ask. Hashes are by definition prone to collisions. It may even happen with two single byte values. Very unlikely, but possible. If you're using a hash, you must expect collisions to happen. The question is whether this is acceptable for your use case, what implications a collision has for your application, whether you can mitigate that problem, and how likely it is for a collision to happen.
All this together informs your decision whether hashing in general is something you want to use in your situation and/or what hash in particular to choose.
For uploading a file to a service, I was calculating the md5 based on the whole content of the file.
I was asked to do in a different way: the md5 of the file, and then also 3 more parts: 2% from the start of the file, 2% from 1/3 of the file, and 2% from 2/3, and 2% of the end of the file and then hash it the file's size and added the file size in bytes at the end.
Apparently this solves hash collisions between files. To me it seems like a waste of time, since your not increasing the size of md5. So for a huge large number of files, you're still gonna have, statistically, the same number of collisions.
Please help me understand the reasoning behind this.
EDIT: we are then hashing the resulting hashes.
A good cryptographically strong hashing algorithm is already designed with the goal to make it infeasible to intentionally find two different pieces of data with the same hash, let alone by accident. Therefore, just hashing the file is sufficient. Extra hashing of parts of the file is pointless.
This may seem unintuitive because obviously there must exist collisions if the length of the hash is shorter than the length of the data. However, it is not feasible to find these collisions because an MD5 hash is an unpredictable 128-bit number and the amount of possible 128-bit numbers (2^128) is mind boggling. If you could count at a rate of a trillion trillion per second, counting through all 128-bit numbers would still take (2^128 / 1e24) seconds ~ about 10 million years. This is probably a good lower limit to the amount of time that it would take to find a hash collision the brute force way without custom hardware.
That said, this is all assuming that there are no weaknesses in the hashing algorithm that allow you to do better than brute force. MD5 is broken in this regard, so you should not use it if you need to defend against attackers that would try to create collisions. It would be better to use a newer hashing algorithm like SHA-2 or SHA-3. (These also support even larger outputs such as 256 bits.)
Sounds like a dangerous practice, because you're re-hashing without factoring in a lot of data. The advantage however is that by running other hashes, you are effectivley winding up with a hash signature consisting of "more bits" - (i.e. you are getting three MD5 hashes as a result).
If you want to do this - and are in-fact okay with having more (larger) hash data to store/compare - you would be MUCH better advise to simply run a different hash function (other than MD5) that is either more secure, and/or uses a larger number of bits.
MD5 is an "older" algorithm and is known to have cryptographic weaknessess. I'd recommend one of the "SHA" algorithms - like SHA-256 or SHA-512. Advantages are that it is a stronger algorithm, you'd only have to has the data ONCE, and you'd get more bits than an MD5, yet since your running it once, it would be faster.
Note, that the possibility of hash collisions always exists. Even "high end" storage products which use hashes for detection will compare buffers to verify an exact match even if the comparison of two hashes matches.
I am trying to find out if there is any API in C for calculating a 64 bit hash.
I found out that some people use top 64 bits of MD5/SHA1 etc. Is it a good approach?
You could try SipHash in its form as a MAC (which requires key management, though). It is particularly well-suited for short input messages and aims at cryptographic strength. A C implementation is also available.
But if you really care about someone actively messing around with your files, you shouldn't restrict yourself to 64 bits of security. 64 bits can be broken even by brute force today, given enough time and resources. You should use SHA-256 or stronger for that. Or let me state it the other way round, blacklisting broken options: don't use MD5 (or MD-anything for that matter). Use SHA-1 only if you can't use SHA-256 for some reason.
Using a hash also has the advantage that you don't need to manage any keys (opposed to using a MAC). You should just keep the hashes you compute in a different place than the files you are about to monitor - otherwise somebody tampering with your files can easily tamper with the checksum, too.
Regarding whether truncating hashes is good or bad
In theory, I can't see why it should be wrong to truncate a let's say 160 bit hash value down to 64 bit, regardless of whether you take the most significant bits or the least significant bits or pick them using any arbitrary pattern. The only reason why this isn't done more often that I can think of is efficiency - why bring the big guns if there are more efficient algorithms for handling the smaller problems.
In what follows, I assume a cryptographically secure hash for this purpose, general-purpose hashes are quite a different topic - they might expose attack surfaces when truncated for all I know.
But, for a cryptographically secure hash, unless the algorithm is broken, we can assume that its output is indistinguishable from that of a uniformly distributed random variable.
If we truncate this value now, we don't offer any further insight into the inner workings of the algorithm. Still, we do weaken the security by the simple fact that brute-forcing (be it collisions or finding pre-images) now takes less time by laws of probability.
For example, finding a collision for a 64 bit hash takes roughly 2^32 attempts on average - says the Birthday Paradoxon. If you truncate your output down to the least significant 32 bits of the original 64 bit hash, then you will find collisions in time roughly 2^16, because you simply ignore the most significant 32 bits and the de-facto uniform distribution does the rest - it's like you started searching for collisions with a 32 bit value in the first place.
It's a bad idea. Hash function values are always meant to be taken as a whole.
For the implied question of "how to calculate a 64 bit hash": what's your intended use? Remember that 64 bits are too few for a crypto-strength hash function.
Use CRC to protect against random changes.
Use HMAC to protect against an attacker changing your files. HMAC uses a secret key that is necessary to generate and verify the tags. The result of an HMAC is as long as the underlying hash function (e.g. 20 bytes for an HMAC-SHA1), but it is frequently truncated. I.e. according to NIST SP 800-107 p.14 64-96 bits should be enough for most applications.
64 bits is small for a hash and usually, hashes are meant to be taken as a whole.
Now, what do you need these 64 bits for ? Answer will depend of expected usage.
Keep in mind that md5 is quite broken nowadays and 64 bits is very low security.
If you just need integrity checking against random changes, then a simple checksum as given in the other answers may be enough.
If you need cryptographic strength to ensure the original content, then 64 bit is too weak. Better use the full value of an unbroken algorithm, i.e. not MD5. SHA1 is still okay, but for longer term security better use SHA256. Or even go further with HMAC, as mentioned in the other answer.
There is nothing wrong with using the truncated value of a cryptographic hash. In fact, SHA224/384 are calculated by calculating a SHA256/512 hash with a different initialization vector and then truncating the result. However, this is only valid for cryptographic hashes. It may be a bad idea for normal checksums and table hashes.
Use OpenSSL's API for the calculations.(www.openssl.org).
Are there any 32-bit checksum algorithm with either:
Smaller hash collision probability for input data sizes < 1 KB ?
Collision hits with more uniform distribution.
These relative to CRC32. I'm practically not counting on first property, because of limitation of storage space of 32 bits. But for the second ... seems there could be improvements.
Any ideas ? Thanks. (I need concrete implementation, better in C, but C++/ C# or anything to start with is also OK).
How about MurmurHash? It is said, that this hash has good distribution (passes chi-square tests) and good avalanche effect. Also very good computing speed.
Not for the first criteria. Any well designed hash function with a 32 bit output has a 1 in 2^32 chance of a collision for any pair of inputs. The second criteria is not very well defined, although there are surely some statistical tests that could be used, and I'm sure someone has done it (chi-square for collision intervals?). As for needing an implementation, I strongly recommend that you not accept any proposed code for a hash function that is not an implementation of a well known hash, as there is a high risk of security problems or poor performance when rolling your own hash or encryption. A well known but bad hash function is better than one you designed yourself, even if the latter one tests well and has a 'good' collision distribution, simply because the former has more eyeballs on it.
I would like to prevent duplicate content. I do not want to keep a copies of content, so I decided to keep just the md5 signatures.
I read that md5 collisions do happen, different content could give in the same md5 signature.
Do you think md5 is enough?
Should I use md5 and sh1 together?
People have been able to deliberately produce MD5 collisions under contrived circumstances, but for preventing duplicate content (in the absence of malicious users) it's more than adequate.
Having said that, if you can use SHA-1 (or SHA-2) you should - you'll be fractionally but measurably safer from collisions.
MD5 should be fine, collisions are very rare, but if you're really worried, you can use sha-1 as well.
Though I guess the signatures really aren't that large, so if you have the spare processing cycles and the disk space, you could do both. But if space or speed is limited, I'd just go with one.
Why not simply compare the content byte for byte if there is a hash collision? hash collisions are very rare, and so you're only going to have to do a byte for byte check very rarely. That way duplicates will only be detected if the items are actually duplicated
md5 should be enough. Yes, there can be collisions, but the chances of that happening are so incredibly small that I wouldn't worry about it unless you were literally tracking many billions of pieces of content.
If you're really afraid of accidental collisions just do both MD5 and SHA1 hashes and compare them. If they both match, it's the same content. If either one differs, it's different content.
Combining algorithms serves to only obfuscate, but does not increase security in a hashing algorithm.
MD5 is too broken to use anyway, IMHO. Forging MD5 hashes is proven by researchers, where they demonstrated being able to forge content that generates an MD5 collision, thereby opening the door to generating a forged CSR to buy a cert from RapidSSL for a domain name they don't own. Security Now! episode 179 explains the process.
For me, SHA-based hashes are stronger and most development platforms support it so the choice is easy. The remaining deciding factor is then the block size.
A timestamp + md5 together are safe enough.
MD5 is broken and SHA1 is close to it. Use SHA2.
edit
Based on an update from the OP, it doesn't seem that intentional collisions are a serious concern here. For unintentional ones, any decent hash with at least a 64-bit output would be fine.
I would still avoid MD5 and even SHA1, in general, but there's no reason to be dogmatic about it. If the tool fits here, then by all means use it.