Misplaced Pages

#526473

37-403: The security of MD4 has been severely compromised. The first full collision attack against MD4 was published in 1995, and several newer attacks have been published since then. As of 2007, an attack can generate collisions in less than two MD4 hash operations. A theoretical preimage attack also exists. A variant of MD4 is used in the ed2k URI scheme to provide a unique identifier for a file in

74-427: A chosen-prefix collision attack against SHA-1 with computing complexity between 2 and 2 and cost less than 100,000 US dollars. In 2020, researchers reduced the complexity of a chosen-prefix collision attack against SHA-1 to 2 . Many applications of cryptographic hash functions do not rely on collision resistance , thus collision attacks do not affect their security. For example, HMACs are not vulnerable. For

111-526: A chosen-prefix collision attack was found against MD5, requiring roughly 2 evaluations of the MD5 function. The paper also demonstrates two X.509 certificates for different domain names, with colliding hash values. This means that a certificate authority could be asked to sign a certificate for one domain, and then that certificate (specially its signature) could be used to create a new rogue certificate to impersonate another domain. A real-world collision attack

148-460: A collision-resistant hash function from a collision-resistant compression function. The hash function PARSHA-256 was designed using the parallel algorithm and the compression function of SHA-256. As mentioned in the introduction, the padding scheme used in the Merkle–Damgård construction must be chosen carefully to ensure the security of the scheme. Mihir Bellare gives sufficient conditions for

185-479: A few seconds on a regular computer. Hash collisions created this way are usually constant length and largely unstructured, so cannot directly be applied to attack widespread document formats or protocols. However, workarounds are possible by abusing dynamic constructs present in many formats. In this way, two documents would be created which are as similar as possible in order to have the same hash value. One document would be shown to an authority to be signed, and then

222-449: A padding scheme to possess to ensure that the MD construction is secure: it suffices that the scheme be "MD-compliant" (the original length-padding scheme used by Merkle is an example of MD-compliant padding). The conditions are: Here, | X | denotes the length of X . With these conditions in place, a collision in the MD hash function exists exactly when there is a collision in

259-403: A smaller output hash size or to guarantee a better mixing and avalanche effect on the bits in the hash sum. The finalisation function is often built by using the compression function. (Note that in some documents a different terminology is used: the act of length padding is called "finalisation". ) The popularity of this construction is due to the fact, proven by Merkle and Damgård , that if

296-504: A very efficient collision attack, alongside attacks on later hash function designs in the MD4/MD5/SHA-1/RIPEMD family. This result was improved later by Sasaki et al., and generating a collision is now as cheap as verifying it (a few microseconds). In 2008, the preimage resistance of MD4 was also broken by Gaëtan Leurent, with a 2 attack. In 2010 Guo et al published a 2 attack. In 2011, RFC 6150 stated that RFC 1320 (MD4)

333-399: A wide-pipe hash function can be made approximately twice as fast if the wide-pipe state can be divided in half in the following manner: one half is input to the succeeding compression function while the other half is combined with the output of that compression function. The main idea of the hash construction is to forward half of the previous chaining value forward to XOR it to the output of

370-623: Is historic (obsolete). The 128-bit (16-byte) MD4 hashes (also termed message digests ) are typically represented as 32-digit hexadecimal numbers. The following demonstrates a 43-byte ASCII input and the corresponding MD4 hash: Even a small change in the message will (with overwhelming probability) result in a completely different hash, e.g. changing d to c : The hash of the zero-length string is: The following test vectors are defined in RFC 1320 (The MD4 Message-Digest Algorithm) Let: Note that two hex-digits of k1 and k2 define one byte of

407-459: Is a method of building collision-resistant cryptographic hash functions from collision-resistant one-way compression functions . This construction was used in the design of many popular hash algorithms such as MD5 , SHA-1 , and SHA-2 . The Merkle–Damgård construction was described in Ralph Merkle 's Ph.D. thesis in 1979. Ralph Merkle and Ivan Damgård independently proved that

SECTION 10

#1732786796527

444-430: Is inherently vulnerable to collisions using a birthday attack . Due to the birthday problem , these attacks are much faster than a brute force would be. A hash of n bits can be broken in 2 time steps (evaluations of the hash function). Mathematically stated, a collision attack finds two different messages m1 and m2 , such that hash(m1) = hash(m2) . In a classical collision attack, the attacker has no control over

481-426: Is practically broken; techniques like randomized (salted) hashing will buy extra time by requiring the harder preimage attack . The usual attack scenario goes like this: In 2008, researchers used a chosen-prefix collision attack against MD5 using this scenario, to produce a rogue certificate authority certificate. They created two versions of a TLS public key certificate , one of which appeared legitimate and

518-483: Is the most widely-used hash function in this class. (Non-keyed "simple" hashes remain safe to use as long as the application's hash table is not controllable from the outside.) It is possible to perform an analogous attack to fill up Bloom filters using a (partial) preimage attack. Merkle%E2%80%93Damg%C3%A5rd construction In cryptography , the Merkle–Damgård construction or Merkle–Damgård hash function

555-430: Is very similar to the Merkle–Damgård construction but has a larger internal state size, meaning that the bit-length that is internally used is larger than the output bit-length. If a hash of n bits is desired, then the compression function f takes 2 n bits of chaining value and m bits of the message and compresses this to an output of 2 n bits. Therefore, in a final step, a second compression function compresses

592-421: The attack to be useful, the attacker must be in control of the input to the hash function. Because digital signature algorithms cannot sign a large amount of data efficiently, most implementations use a hash function to reduce ("compress") the amount of data that needs to be signed down to a constant size. Digital signature schemes often become vulnerable to hash collisions as soon as the underlying hash function

629-405: The block size of the compression function is 8 bytes (64 bits). We get two blocks (the padding octets shown with the lightblue background color): This implies that other messages having the same content but ending with additional zeros at the end will result in the same hash value. In the above example, another almost-identical message (0x48617368496e7075 74 00 ) will generate the same hash value as

666-424: The compression function. In so doing the construction takes in longer message blocks every iteration than the original wide pipe. Using the same function f as before, it takes n -bit chaining values and n + m bits of the message. However, the price to pay is the extra memory used in the construction for feed-forward. The MD construction is inherently sequential. There is a parallel algorithm which constructs

703-554: The content of either message, but they are arbitrarily chosen by the algorithm. More efficient attacks are possible by employing cryptanalysis to specific hash functions. When a collision attack is discovered and is found to be faster than a birthday attack, a hash function is often denounced as "broken". The NIST hash function competition was largely induced by published collision attacks against two very commonly used hash functions, MD5 and SHA-1 . The collision attacks against MD5 have improved so much that, as of 2007, it takes just

740-409: The diagram, the one-way compression function is denoted by f , and transforms two fixed length inputs to an output of the same size as one of the inputs. The algorithm starts with an initial value, the initialization vector (IV). The IV is a fixed value (algorithm- or implementation-specific). For each message block, the compression (or compacting) function f takes the result so far, combines it with

777-494: The input string, whose length is 64 bytes . Collision attack In cryptography , a collision attack on a cryptographic hash tries to find two inputs producing the same hash value, i.e. a hash collision . This is in contrast to a preimage attack where a specific target hash value is specified. There are roughly two types of collision attacks: More generally: Much like symmetric-key ciphers are vulnerable to brute force attacks , every cryptographic hash function

SECTION 20

#1732786796527

814-456: The last internal hash value ( 2 n bits) to the final hash value ( n bits). This can be done as simply as discarding half of the last 2 n -bit output. SHA-512/224 and SHA-512/256 take this form since they are derived from a variant of SHA-512. SHA-384 and SHA-224 are similarly derived from SHA-512 and SHA-256, respectively, but the width of their pipe is much less than 2 n . It has been demonstrated by Mridul Nandi and Souradyuti Paul that

851-443: The message block, and produces an intermediate result. The last block is padded with zeros as needed and bits representing the length of the entire message are appended. (See below for a detailed length-padding example.) To harden the hash further, the last result is then sometimes fed through a finalisation function . The finalisation function can have several purposes such as compressing a bigger internal state (the last result) into

888-409: The message length value (see SHA-1 pseudocode ). Further improvement can be made by inserting the length value in the last block if there is enough space. Doing so avoids having an extra block for the message length. If we assume the length value is encoded on 5 bytes (40 bits), the message becomes: Storing the message length out-of-band in metadata, or otherwise embedded at the start of the message,

925-440: The one-way compression function f is collision resistant , then so is the hash function constructed using it. Unfortunately, this construction also has several undesirable properties: Due to several structural weaknesses of Merkle–Damgård construction, especially the length extension problem and multicollision attacks, Stefan Lucks proposed the use of the wide-pipe hash instead of Merkle–Damgård construction. The wide-pipe hash

962-426: The original message "HashInput" above. In other words, any message having extra zeros at the end makes it indistinguishable from the one without them. To prevent this situation, the first bit of the first padding octet is changed to "1" (0x80), yielding: However, most common implementations use a fixed bit-size (generally 64 or 128 bits in modern algorithms) at a fixed position at the end of the last block for inserting

999-425: The original presentation. To prevent hash flooding without making the hash function overly complex, newer keyed hash functions are introduced, with the security objective that collisions are hard to find as long as the key is unknown. They may be slower than previous hashes, but are still much easier to compute than cryptographic hashes. As of 2021, Jean-Philippe Aumasson and Daniel J. Bernstein 's SipHash (2012)

1036-541: The popular eDonkey2000 / eMule P2P networks. MD4 was also used by the rsync protocol (prior to version 3.0.0). MD4 is used to compute NTLM password-derived key digests on Microsoft Windows NT, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10 and 11. Weaknesses in MD4 were demonstrated by Den Boer and Bosselaers in a paper published in 1991. The first full-round MD4 collision attack was found by Hans Dobbertin in 1995, which took only seconds to carry out at that time. In August 2004, Wang et al. found

1073-413: The result into blocks of fixed size, and processes them one at a time with the compression function, each time combining a block of the input with the output of the previous round. In order to make the construction secure, Merkle and Damgård proposed that messages be padded with a padding that encodes the length of the original message. This is called length padding or Merkle–Damgård strengthening . In

1110-478: The signature could be copied to the other file. Such a malicious document would contain two different messages in the same document, but conditionally display one or the other through subtle changes to the file: An extension of the collision attack is the chosen-prefix collision attack, which is specific to Merkle–Damgård hash functions . In this case, the attacker can choose two arbitrarily different documents, and then append different calculated values that result in

1147-464: The structure is sound: that is, if an appropriate padding scheme is used and the compression function is collision-resistant , then the hash function will also be collision-resistant. The Merkle–Damgård hash function first applies an MD-compliant padding function to create an input whose size is a multiple of a fixed number (e.g. 512 or 1024) — this is because compression functions cannot handle inputs of arbitrary size. The hash function then breaks

MD4 - Misplaced Pages Continue

1184-470: The underlying compression function. Therefore, the Merkle–Damgård construction is provably secure when the underlying compression function is secure. To be able to feed the message to the compression function, the last block must be padded with constant data (generally with zeroes) to a full block. For example, suppose the message to be hashed is "HashInput" (9 octet string, 0x48617368496e707574 in ASCII ) and

1221-536: The whole documents having an equal hash value. This attack is normally harder, a hash of n bits can be broken in 2 time steps, but is much more powerful than a classical collision attack. Mathematically stated, given two different prefixes p 1 , p 2 , the attack finds two suffixes s 1 and s 2 such that hash ( p 1 ∥ s 1 ) = hash ( p 2 ∥ s 2 ) (where ∥ is the concatenation operation). More efficient attacks are also possible by employing cryptanalysis to specific hash functions. In 2007,

1258-565: Was known to be very weak in 2004, certificate authorities were still willing to sign MD5-verified certificates in December 2008, and at least one Microsoft code-signing certificate was still using MD5 in May 2012. The Flame malware successfully used a new variation of a chosen-prefix collision attack to spoof code signing of its components by a Microsoft root certificate that still used the compromised MD5 algorithm. In 2019, researchers found

1295-407: Was originally described in 2003. To execute such an attack, the attacker sends the server multiple pieces of data that hash to the same value and then tries to get the server to perform slow lookups. As the main focus of hash functions used in hash tables was speed instead of security, most major programming languages were affected, with new vulnerabilities of this class still showing up a decade after

1332-593: Was published in December 2008 when a group of security researchers published a forged X.509 signing certificate that could be used to impersonate a certificate authority , taking advantage of a prefix collision attack against the MD5 hash function. This meant that an attacker could impersonate any SSL -secured website as a man-in-the-middle , thereby subverting the certificate validation built in every web browser to protect electronic commerce . The rogue certificate may not be revokable by real authorities, and could also have an arbitrary forged expiry time. Even though MD5

1369-474: Was submitted for signing by the RapidSSL certificate authority. The second version, which had the same MD5 hash, contained flags which signal web browsers to accept it as a legitimate authority for issuing arbitrary other certificates. Hash flooding (also known as HashDoS ) is a denial of service attack that uses hash collisions to exploit the worst-case (linear probe) runtime of hash table lookups. It

#526473