Talk:One-way compression function: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Atwater (talk | contribs)
Might be enough to write like an encyclopedia
Line 24:
 
::Ok, since both of you seem to want it like that I'll give it a shot. I am also thinking of removing the pink balls around IV and HASH and only use text for them. I'll see how that looks. (Sorry Matt, but I think that might look better.) Oh, and I should mention that last week I read through the source code of about 10 different hash functions and discovered that most do not use a finalisation function. (Apart from doing the "100..." + length padding of course.) But since some use it I think I will keep the finalisation function box but mention in the text of the Merkle-Damgård article that only some hashes use a finalisation function. But I will still have the length padding fed to a separate compression function, since length padding within the last message block is just a speed optimisation that not all hashes use and that optimisation I think I explain well in the length padding example in the Merkle-Damgård article. --[[User:Davidgothberg|David Göthberg]] 10:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 
== Might be enough to write like an encyclopedia ==
 
"The resulting hash size is big enough. 64-bit is too small, 128-bit might be enough."
 
What does this mean? What are the criteria? If your 128-bit key is secure, shouldn't it require 2^64 operations to find even a collision? Why isn't that big enough? Or is there something being left unsaid about how secure the block based ciphers are?