Mixing
Why is SHA-3 robust against Length-Extension Attacks?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
If a length extension attack can occur because of $H(textK||textMessage)$, what changed in SHA-3 from SHA-2 that prevents this from occurring?
mac sha-3
edited 16 mins ago
Ella Rose
13.6k43372
asked 54 mins ago
elberman
111
New contributor
elberman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
If a length extension attack can occur because of $H(textK||textMessage)$, what changed in SHA-3 from SHA-2 that prevents this from occurring?
mac sha-3
edited 16 mins ago
Ella Rose
13.6k43372
asked 54 mins ago
elberman
111
New contributor
elberman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
If a length extension attack can occur because of $H(textK||textMessage)$, what changed in SHA-3 from SHA-2 that prevents this from occurring?
mac sha-3
edited 16 mins ago
Ella Rose
13.6k43372
asked 54 mins ago
elberman
111
New contributor
elberman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
If a length extension attack can occur because of $H(textK||textMessage)$, what changed in SHA-3 from SHA-2 that prevents this from occurring?
mac sha-3
mac sha-3
edited 16 mins ago
Ella Rose
13.6k43372
asked 54 mins ago
elberman
111
New contributor
elberman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 16 mins ago
Ella Rose
13.6k43372
asked 54 mins ago
elberman
111
New contributor
elberman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 16 mins ago
Ella Rose
13.6k43372
edited 16 mins ago
Ella Rose
13.6k43372
edited 16 mins ago
Ella Rose
13.6k43372
13.6k43372
asked 54 mins ago
elberman
111
New contributor
elberman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 54 mins ago
elberman
111
asked 54 mins ago
elberman
111
111
New contributor
elberman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
elberman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
elberman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Everything was changed between SHA-2 and SHA-3.
In the specific case of the "length extension attack": the issue is that SHA-2 process data by splitting it into elementary blocks (64 or 128 bytes, depending on the SHA-2 variant), and produces for each block an output which has exactly the same size as the function output. Moreover, the output for a complete message is merely the current output after processing all blocks of the (padded) message. This means that anybody can take a hash output and "continue" processing of a longer message with additional blocks.
In SHA-3, a sponge construction is used. The crucial point is that, in a sponge, the internal state is much larger than the hash function output. Thus, you cannot simply "continue" processing of a message by using a hash output, because that output contains only a fraction of the internal state.
You can get the same kind of protection with a SHA-2 function by truncating the output. For instance, there is a (relatively new) member of the SHA-2 family called "SHA-512/256", which is SHA-512 (with a different conventional IV) with output truncated to 256 bits. This truncation makes it immune to the length extension attack.
answered 34 mins ago
Thomas Pornin
65.8k12171251
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Everything was changed between SHA-2 and SHA-3.
In the specific case of the "length extension attack": the issue is that SHA-2 process data by splitting it into elementary blocks (64 or 128 bytes, depending on the SHA-2 variant), and produces for each block an output which has exactly the same size as the function output. Moreover, the output for a complete message is merely the current output after processing all blocks of the (padded) message. This means that anybody can take a hash output and "continue" processing of a longer message with additional blocks.
In SHA-3, a sponge construction is used. The crucial point is that, in a sponge, the internal state is much larger than the hash function output. Thus, you cannot simply "continue" processing of a message by using a hash output, because that output contains only a fraction of the internal state.
You can get the same kind of protection with a SHA-2 function by truncating the output. For instance, there is a (relatively new) member of the SHA-2 family called "SHA-512/256", which is SHA-512 (with a different conventional IV) with output truncated to 256 bits. This truncation makes it immune to the length extension attack.
answered 34 mins ago
Thomas Pornin
65.8k12171251
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Everything was changed between SHA-2 and SHA-3.
In the specific case of the "length extension attack": the issue is that SHA-2 process data by splitting it into elementary blocks (64 or 128 bytes, depending on the SHA-2 variant), and produces for each block an output which has exactly the same size as the function output. Moreover, the output for a complete message is merely the current output after processing all blocks of the (padded) message. This means that anybody can take a hash output and "continue" processing of a longer message with additional blocks.
In SHA-3, a sponge construction is used. The crucial point is that, in a sponge, the internal state is much larger than the hash function output. Thus, you cannot simply "continue" processing of a message by using a hash output, because that output contains only a fraction of the internal state.
You can get the same kind of protection with a SHA-2 function by truncating the output. For instance, there is a (relatively new) member of the SHA-2 family called "SHA-512/256", which is SHA-512 (with a different conventional IV) with output truncated to 256 bits. This truncation makes it immune to the length extension attack.
answered 34 mins ago
Thomas Pornin
65.8k12171251
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Everything was changed between SHA-2 and SHA-3.
In the specific case of the "length extension attack": the issue is that SHA-2 process data by splitting it into elementary blocks (64 or 128 bytes, depending on the SHA-2 variant), and produces for each block an output which has exactly the same size as the function output. Moreover, the output for a complete message is merely the current output after processing all blocks of the (padded) message. This means that anybody can take a hash output and "continue" processing of a longer message with additional blocks.
In SHA-3, a sponge construction is used. The crucial point is that, in a sponge, the internal state is much larger than the hash function output. Thus, you cannot simply "continue" processing of a message by using a hash output, because that output contains only a fraction of the internal state.
You can get the same kind of protection with a SHA-2 function by truncating the output. For instance, there is a (relatively new) member of the SHA-2 family called "SHA-512/256", which is SHA-512 (with a different conventional IV) with output truncated to 256 bits. This truncation makes it immune to the length extension attack.
answered 34 mins ago
Thomas Pornin
65.8k12171251
Everything was changed between SHA-2 and SHA-3.
In the specific case of the "length extension attack": the issue is that SHA-2 process data by splitting it into elementary blocks (64 or 128 bytes, depending on the SHA-2 variant), and produces for each block an output which has exactly the same size as the function output. Moreover, the output for a complete message is merely the current output after processing all blocks of the (padded) message. This means that anybody can take a hash output and "continue" processing of a longer message with additional blocks.
In SHA-3, a sponge construction is used. The crucial point is that, in a sponge, the internal state is much larger than the hash function output. Thus, you cannot simply "continue" processing of a message by using a hash output, because that output contains only a fraction of the internal state.
You can get the same kind of protection with a SHA-2 function by truncating the output. For instance, there is a (relatively new) member of the SHA-2 family called "SHA-512/256", which is SHA-512 (with a different conventional IV) with output truncated to 256 bits. This truncation makes it immune to the length extension attack.
answered 34 mins ago
Thomas Pornin
65.8k12171251
answered 34 mins ago
Thomas Pornin
65.8k12171251
answered 34 mins ago
Thomas Pornin
65.8k12171251
answered 34 mins ago
Thomas Pornin
65.8k12171251
65.8k12171251
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
elberman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
elberman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
elberman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
elberman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcrypto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f62622%2fwhy-is-sha-3-robust-against-length-extension-attacks%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password