Difference between revisions of "SHA-1"

From The ECRYPT Hash Function Website
(Cryptanalysis)
Line 8: Line 8:
 
== Cryptanalysis ==
 
== Cryptanalysis ==
  
We can try to give the basic infrmation: so block size general construction of compression functions etc. NO DETAILS. Just reference to the paper proposing the hash function. Then we list the attacks or preliminary analyses. We give the abstract and our opinion about this attack. For instance 2nd-preimages in much less than 2<sup>n</sup>. Opinion could be: very nice observation, generic, but still not practical since extreme message lengths are required.
+
=== Collision Attacks ===
  
I think we should go this way. Esecially we should clearly say what is
+
Here I would list all papers that deal with SHA-1. We should also give the abstract and the bibtex entry for the corresponding paper. Additionall we should give our opinion about the attack described in the paper.
* broken
+
 
* wounded
+
 
* ?
+
=== Second Preimage Attacks ===
* etc.
+
We are not aware of any article about preimage attacks on SHA-1
 +
 
 +
=== Preimage Attacks ===
 +
We are not aware of any article about preimage attacks on SHA-1
 +
 
 +
 
 +
== eHASH Recommendation ==
 +
 
 +
Something like: SHA-1 is considered to be broken. Please do not incorporate SHA-1 in new application any longer. Try to migrate to another hash function.

Revision as of 15:14, 16 October 2006

1 General

2 Cryptanalysis

2.1 Collision Attacks

Here I would list all papers that deal with SHA-1. We should also give the abstract and the bibtex entry for the corresponding paper. Additionall we should give our opinion about the attack described in the paper.


2.2 Second Preimage Attacks

We are not aware of any article about preimage attacks on SHA-1

2.3 Preimage Attacks

We are not aware of any article about preimage attacks on SHA-1


3 eHASH Recommendation

Something like: SHA-1 is considered to be broken. Please do not incorporate SHA-1 in new application any longer. Try to migrate to another hash function.