Talk:The SHA-3 Zoo

I'm thinking about introducing another column to the list of submissions to provide a rough, overall classification of the candidates (e.g. classical Merkle-Damgaard vs. HAIFA vs. sponge vs. tree-based vs. streaming vs. ...), motivated by private messages I've got comparing the current SHA-3 Zoo with my old hash lounge.

However, finding the most appropriate category for some submissions may be a tough task; paradigms may be so distorted as to be nearly unrecognizable. Still, other candidates exhibit a much more transparent structure, and I think this information may be useful (e.g. comparing submissions that fall on distinct categories may not be as fair as comparing functions that share a high-level structure).

Would such a modification be welcome to the SHA-3 Zoo contributors?

Paulo.

I think this would be a lot of effort for a relatively minor added value; as you observe, many candidates are likely to use "uncategorizable" modes of operations. How one would classify CubeHash? It has similarities with a sponge constructions, but is not a sponge in general. Also, both MD6 and ESSENCE have a tree construction, but with different arities, parameters, etc. Finding the best tradeoff precision/readability seems difficult...

JP

Well, I don't see it as too much effort -- for me at any rate; I'm not asking that somebody else do the hard work ☺. Rather, I think it's part of trying to understand how each submission works, and it could also suggest lines of attack (particularly where the actual functions deviate from previously analyzed constructions). Besides, in cases where the authors disagree of a tentative category it might shed new light on those authors' original intent.

Paulo.

Addendum: as far as I could tell, the overall structure of the currently known proposals seems to be the following (disclaimer: I may be completely mistaken in many cases):

Hash Function Name	Status	External Cryptanalysis	Tentative Classification
Abacus	submitted	none	? [?]
ARIRANG	submitted	none	? [?]
AURORA	submitted	none	? [?]
BLAKE	submitted	none	HAIFA/? [narrow pipe]
Blender	submitted	none	? [?]
Blue Midnight Wish	submitted	yes	sponge? [wide pipe]
Boole	submitted	☠	streaming
Cheetah	submitted	none	? [?]
CHI	submitted	none	Merkle-Damgård/Davies-Meyer [wide pipe]
CRUNCH	submitted	none	Merkle-Damgård/concatenate-permute-truncate [narrow pipe]
CubeHash	submitted	yes	sponge [wide pipe]
DCH	submitted	☠	Merkle-Damgård/Miyaguchi-Preneel [narrow pipe]
Dynamic SHA	submitted	none	? [?]
Dynamic SHA2	submitted	none	? [?]
ECHO	submitted	none	? [?]
ECOH	submitted	none	? [?]
Edon-R	submitted	yes	streaming
EnRUPT	submitted	☠	streaming
ESSENCE	submitted	none	Merkle tree [narrow pipe]
FSB	submitted	none	Merkle-Damgård/concatenate-permute-truncate [wide pipe]
Fugue	submitted	none	sponge? [wide pipe]
Grøstl	submitted	yes	sponge? Merkle-Damgård/Davies-Meyer? [wide pipe]
Hamsi	submitted	none	? [?]
HASH 2X	submitted	☠	streaming?
JH	submitted	none	sponge [wide pipe]
Keccak	submitted	none	sponge [wide pipe]
Khichidi-1	submitted	none	? [?]
LANE	submitted	none	HAIFA/concatenate-permute-truncate or Damgård interleaving [narrow pipe]
Lesamnta	submitted	none	? [?]
Luffa	submitted	none	? [?]
LUX	submitted	none	? [?]
Maraca	submitted	none	sponge? [wide pipe]
MCSSHA-3	submitted	☠	streaming
MD6	submitted	yes	bounded-height Merkle tree [wide pipe]
MeshHash	submitted	none	? [?]
NaSHA	submitted	none	sponge? [narrow pipe]
SANDstorm	submitted	none	? [?]
NKS2D	submitted	☠	cellular automaton
Ponic	submitted	yes	streaming
Sarmal	submitted	yes	HAIFA/Davies-Meyer [narrow pipe]
Sgàil	submitted	☠	Merkle-Damgård/Davies-Meyer [wide pipe]
Shabal	submitted	none	? [?]
SHAMATA	submitted	none	sponge [wide pipe]
SHAvite-3	submitted	none	? [?]
SIMD	submitted	none	? [?]
Skein	submitted	none	Merkle-Damgård/UBI? Merkle tree? [narrow pipe]
Spectral Hash	submitted	yes	Merkle-Damgård/prism? [narrow pipe]
SWIFFTX	submitted	none	HAIFA/concatenate-permute-truncate [wide pipe]
Tangle	submitted	none	? [?]
TIB3	submitted	none	? [?]
Twister	submitted	none	? [?]
Vortex	submitted	yes	Merkle-Damgård/Vortex-block? [wide pipe]
WaMM	submitted	☠	sponge [wide pipe]
Waterfall	submitted	none	streaming

I'm in favour of adding more infos to this page. Seems like a good first shot. But surely we have to put a disclaimer to this category saying something like "this column can never we entirely correct as we would need almost 64 categories...".

Regarding your current categorization. Why not distinguish designs that are based on a small number of permutations from designs based on a huge number of permutations (e.g. block-cipher based). This seems a crucial difference to me. On the other hand, do we really want to distinguish HAIFA from Merkle-Damgaard? The former is an extension of the later. Also, what is your way to distinguish between sponge and streaming?

-Christian

Oh, I'm definitely thinking about adding a disclaimer. Regarding HAIFA vs. MD, I wrote HAIFA when the authors explicitly state so in the documentation. I tend to call "sponge" a construction that inserts a message in "blocks" (related to the abstract design) in a "simple" way (e.g. via some block-oriented group operation), and "stream" a construction oriented toward "words" (related to popular target platforms) mixed into the state through a "complicated" operation (I admit this is rather informal to say the least); also, I again adhere to the authors' statement when they claim a design is streaming. As for permutations vs. block ciphers, I've been thinking about this... but perhaps it's better to discuss the subject privately before, so I can check my own understanding of a few concepts. And of course I'm entirely open to revising a classification if there is evidence of a mistaken prior assessment.

Paulo.

We can follow Orr and say that "everything is HAIFA" ;)

More seriously: more info would of course be valuable, but accurate information seems in this case difficult (and maybe impossible) to provide. All the functions are based on a compression function (whatever the designers say to sound original), then the variations are: how the iteration is performed? (linear or tree), how large is the state?, how many rounds are recommended and how many are broken? (it would be interesting to give this ratio, but often there's more than the "round" parameter, see eg CubeHash), are there additional inputs? (salt, key, counter, etc.).

The iteration mode seems to be linear in most of the submissions, so providing this info may not be that useful. However it could be interesting and easy to add a column "state bitsize". If we want to say how many rounds are broken, we'll reduce to the same problem as we have with the "external cryptanalysis" column with "what is broken".

JP

I just wish to say that the terminology about sponge sometimes seems to spread across things that are not sponge functions according to the definition in our paper Sponge Functions. I have not checked all the entries marked "sponge" in the table above, but I have some doubts about whether these hash functions actually use the sponge construction. For instance, I checked JH and it does not seem they use the sponge construction. Instead, they use MD and a compression function (built on top of a permutation). Also, RadioGatún seems to be sometimes described as a sponge function, when it is not, see [1].

Gilles

Hi, I agree with those saying that a categorization can never be exact. A possibility is to collect a list of headlines such as "Merkle-Damgård", "Sponge", "Block cipher-based", "Permutation-based" etc., and state an indication as to which degree each hash function can be said to fall into each category. As an example, we say that Grøstl is permutation-based, but as Paulo showed, it can also be seen as being block cipher-based, so on a scale from, e.g., 0-4, Grøstl may be permutation-based to a degree of 3, and block cipher-based to a degree of 1 (just an example!). It is "almost" an MD construction, but not quite, so we may say it is MD to a degree of 2 or 3. The question is whether such a categorization will be more fair, more useful, etc., than a true/false categorization.

However, my personal opinion is that we should avoid completely to categorize hash functions (except in 100% objective ways such as internal state size, message block size, status in the competition etc. - some of which you may also argue are not 100% objective). I also think we should not deem hash functions as being "broken" or "damaged", we should just link to all published results, and let people make up their own minds. I am assuming we did not build the SHA-3 Zoo in an attempt to have an influence on NIST's decisions.

/Søren

new tables

This is a draft for the new tables to show the analysis and complexities of each hash function. The first table is shown at the main page, the entries of the second table are only shown at the Wiki page of each hash function.

Martin

main table:

Hash Name	Status	External Cryptanalysis	practical example	time*memory < generic	compr. calls < generic
Abacus	1st round	yes		X	X
ARIRANG	1st round	none
AURORA	1st round	none
BLAKE	1st round	none
Blender	1st round	none
Blue Midnight Wish	1st round	yes
Boole	1st round	yes	X	X	X
Cheetah	1st round	none
CHI	1st round	none
CRUNCH	1st round	none
CubeHash	1st round	yes			X
DCH	1st round	yes	X	X	X
Dynamic SHA	1st round	none
Dynamic SHA2	1st round	none
ECHO	1st round	none
ECOH	1st round	none
Edon-R	1st round	yes			X
EnRUPT	1st round	yes	X	X	X
ESSENCE	1st round	none
FSB	1st round	none
Fugue	1st round	none
Grøstl	1st round	yes
HASH 2X	submitted	yes	X	X	X
Hamsi	1st round	none
JH	1st round	yes			X
Keccak	1st round	none
Khichidi-1	1st round	yes	X	X	X
LANE	1st round	none
Lesamnta	1st round	none
Luffa	1st round	none
LUX	1st round	yes
Maraca	submitted	yes
MCSSHA-3	1st round	yes			X
MD6	1st round	yes
MeshHash	1st round	yes			X
NaSHA	1st round	yes			X
NKS2D	submitted	yes	X	X	X
Ponic	submitted	yes			X
SANDstorm	1st round	none
Sarmal	1st round	yes
Sgàil	1st round	yes	X	X	X
Shabal	1st round	none
SHAMATA	1st round	yes
SHAvite-3	1st round	none
SIMD	1st round	none
Skein	1st round	none
Spectral Hash	1st round	yes
StreamHash	1st round	yes			X
SWIFFTX	1st round	none
Tangle	1st round	yes	X	X	X
TIB3	1st round	none
Twister	1st round	yes		X	X
Vortex	1st round	yes			X
WaMM	1st round	yes	X	X	X
Waterfall	1st round	none

caption for main table:

color	External Cryptanalysis or Status	Explanation
	no external cryptanalysis	no external cryptanalysis for this hash function has been published
	external cryptanalysis	external cryptanalysis published but does not violate the NIST requirements
	compr. calls < generic	the number of compression function calls is below generic attacks for collision, 2nd preimage or preimage
	time*memory < generic	the time*memory product is below generic attacks for collision, 2nd preimage or preimage
	practical example	a practical (collision) example is given for the hash function
	not in round 1	this hash function did not advance to round 1 of the NIST competition

Individual hash function tables:

Hash Function Name	Type of Analysis	Hash Function Part	Hash Size (n)	Parameters/Variants	Compression Function Calls	Memory Requirements	Reference
Abacus	2nd preimage	hash	?		2344	-	Wilson
Abacus	collision	hash	?		2172	-	Wilson
Abacus	2nd preimage	hash	?		2172	-	Nikolić,Khovratovich
Blue Midnight Wish	near collision	compression	all		-	-	Thomsen
Boole	preimage	hash	all		29n/16	-	Nikolić
Boole	collision	hash	224,256		example, 234	-	Mendel,Nad,Schläffer
Boole	collision	hash	384,512		266	-	Mendel,Nad,Schläffer
CubeHash	observations		all	8/1			Aumasson,Meier,Naya-Plasencia,Peyrin
CubeHash	preimage	hash	512		2511	2508	Khovratovich,Nikolić,Weinmann
CubeHash	preimage	hash	512	r/4	2496	-	Khovratovich,Nikolić,Weinmann
CubeHash	preimage	hash	512	r/8	2480	-	Khovratovich,Nikolić,Weinmann
CubeHash	collision	hash	512	2/120	example	-	Aumasson
DCH	collision	hash	all		521	-	Mendel,Lamberger
DCH	preimage	hash	all		521	-	Mendel,Lamberger
DCH	collision	hash	all		245	245	Khovratovich,Nikolić
DCH	preimage	hash	all		245	245	Khovratovich,Nikolić
DCH	2nd preimage	hash	512		2450	?	Rechberger
Edon-R	collision	compression	?		-	-	Khovratovich,Nikolić,Weinmann
Edon-R	2nd preimage	compression	?		-	-	Khovratovich,Nikolić,Weinmann
Edon-R	preimage	compression	?		-	-	Khovratovich,Nikolić,Weinmann
Edon-R	preimage	hash	?		22n/3	22n/3	Khovratovich,Nikolić,Weinmann
Edon-R	multicollision (2K)	hash	256,512		K*2n/2	2n/2	Klima
Edon-R	multipreimage	hash	256,512		?	?	Klima
EnRUPT	preimage	hash	512		2480	2480	Khovratovich,Nikolić
EnRUPT	collision	hash	256		example, 247	-	Indesteege
Grøstl	observation	block cipher	all				Barreto
Hash 2X	2nd preimage	hash	?		example	-	Aumasson
JH	pseudo collision	compression	all		-	-	Bagheri
JH	pseudo 2nd preimage	compression	all		-	-	Bagheri
JH	preimage	hash	all		2510.3	2510.3	Mendel,Thomsen
KhiChidi-1	collision	hash	256		example	-	Mouha
LUX	collision	reduced hash	224	3 blank rounds	-	-	Wu,Feng,Wu
LUX	near collision	reduced hash	256	3 blank rounds	-	-	Wu,Feng,Wu
LUX	free-start collision	compression	?		-	-	Wu,Feng,Wu
LUX	free-start preimage	compression	?		280	-	Wu,Feng,Wu
Maraca	internal collision	internal state	512		2237	2230.5	Canteaut,Naya-Plasencia
MCSSHA-3	collision	hash	all		23n/8	?	Aumasson,Naya-Plasencia
MCSSHA-3	2nd preimage	hash	all		23n/4	?	Aumasson,Naya-Plasencia
MD6	non-randomness	reduced compression	?	18 rounds	?	?	Aumasson,Meier
MD6	key-recovery	reduced compression	?	15 rounds	?	?	Dinur,Shamir
MeshHash	2nd preimage	hash	256		2194.3	2128	Thomsen
MeshHash	2nd preimage	hash	512		2323.2	2256	Thomsen
NaSHA	free-start collision	compression	all		232	?	Nikolić,Khovratovich
NaSHA	free-start preimage	compression	224,256		~2128	?	Nikolić,Khovratovich
NaSHA	free-start preimage	compression	384,512		~2256	?	Nikolić,Khovratovich
NaSHA	free-start collision	compression	all		-	-	Ji,Liangyu,Xu
NaSHA	collision	hash	512		2192	?	Ji,Liangyu,Xu
NKS2D	collision	hash	224		example	-	De Cannière
NKS2D	collision	hash	512		example	-	Enright
Ponic	2nd preimage	hash	512		2265	2256	Naya-Plasencia
Sarmal	preimage (salt size s)	hash	512		max(2512-s,2256+s)	2s	Nikolić
Sgàil	collision	hash	?		example	-	Maxwell
SHAMATA	observation	block cipher					Fleischmann,Gorski
SHAMATA	observation	block cipher					Atalay,Kara,Karakoc
SpectralHash	near collision	hash	224,512	reference impl.	example	-	Enright
SpectralHash	truncated collision	hash	512	reference impl.	example	-	Enright
SpectralHash	collision	hash	?	reference impl.	example	-	Bjørstad
StreamHash	collision	hash	all		n/2*2n/4	?	Khovratovich,Nikolić
StreamHash	preimage	hash	all		n/2*2n/2	?	Khovratovich,Nikolić
StreamHash	collision	hash	256		example	-	Bjørstad
Tangle	observation						Esmaeili
Tangle	collision	hash	all		example, 213 - 228	-	Thomsen
Twister	pseudo collision	compression	all		226.5	228	Mendel,Rechberger,Schläffer
Twister	collision	hash	512		2252	-	Mendel,Rechberger,Schläffer
Twister	2nd preimage	hash	512		2448	264	Mendel,Rechberger,Schläffer
Vortex	observation		all				Aumasson,Dunkelman
Vortex	pseudo collision	compression	all		2n/4	-	Knudsen,Mendel,Rechberger,Thomsen
Vortex	preimage	hash	all		23n/4	2n/4	Knudsen,Mendel,Rechberger,Thomsen
Vortex	collision	hash	256		2122.5	2122.5	Knudsen,Mendel,Rechberger,Thomsen
WaMM	collision	hash	all		example	-	Wilson

caption for individual tables:

A dash (-) in the individual table means that the complexities are neglible. A question mark (?) means the information is not given or unclear.

The "Parameters/Variants" column gives the parameters for attacks on reduced variants. If the column is empty, the attack is on the recommended parameters of the designers.

The "Type of Analyses" column is left white, if the attack is on reduced variants or parts of the hash function.

---

This looks fine to me. The only editorial aspect I'm a bit unsure of is the inclusion of rejected submissions on the same table; they are only reducing the S/N ratio, since they don't contribute anything to the ongoing SHA-3 process (and hence are not likely to received any further attention at least until the competition is over). I suggest moving them to an appendix table.

Paulo.