Mixing
Is SHA1 secured enough as a PRNG
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I read SHA1 is still a secured hashing function with no collision found as of now. However, it's just a matter of time for someone to come up with such a collision or attack. Therefore, in new projects, it is recommended to use SHA256. SHA512 is even better.
In Java, we still use SHA1PRNG algorithm in SecureRandom class for the purpose of generating IV (let's say for CBC).
Is it enough secured as a PRNG generating unpredictable IV for CBC? Or even for a PRNG, SHA256 is recommended?
random-number-generator sha-256 sha-1 semantic-security
asked 4 hours ago
Saptarshi Basu
1184
New contributor
Saptarshi Basu 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
I read SHA1 is still a secured hashing function with no collision found as of now. However, it's just a matter of time for someone to come up with such a collision or attack. Therefore, in new projects, it is recommended to use SHA256. SHA512 is even better.
In Java, we still use SHA1PRNG algorithm in SecureRandom class for the purpose of generating IV (let's say for CBC).
Is it enough secured as a PRNG generating unpredictable IV for CBC? Or even for a PRNG, SHA256 is recommended?
random-number-generator sha-256 sha-1 semantic-security
asked 4 hours ago
Saptarshi Basu
1184
New contributor
Saptarshi Basu 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
I read SHA1 is still a secured hashing function with no collision found as of now. However, it's just a matter of time for someone to come up with such a collision or attack. Therefore, in new projects, it is recommended to use SHA256. SHA512 is even better.
In Java, we still use SHA1PRNG algorithm in SecureRandom class for the purpose of generating IV (let's say for CBC).
Is it enough secured as a PRNG generating unpredictable IV for CBC? Or even for a PRNG, SHA256 is recommended?
random-number-generator sha-256 sha-1 semantic-security
asked 4 hours ago
Saptarshi Basu
1184
New contributor
Saptarshi Basu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I read SHA1 is still a secured hashing function with no collision found as of now. However, it's just a matter of time for someone to come up with such a collision or attack. Therefore, in new projects, it is recommended to use SHA256. SHA512 is even better.
In Java, we still use SHA1PRNG algorithm in SecureRandom class for the purpose of generating IV (let's say for CBC).
Is it enough secured as a PRNG generating unpredictable IV for CBC? Or even for a PRNG, SHA256 is recommended?
random-number-generator sha-256 sha-1 semantic-security
random-number-generator sha-256 sha-1 semantic-security
asked 4 hours ago
Saptarshi Basu
1184
New contributor
Saptarshi Basu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 4 hours ago
Saptarshi Basu
1184
New contributor
Saptarshi Basu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 4 hours ago
Saptarshi Basu
1184
New contributor
Saptarshi Basu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 4 hours ago
Saptarshi Basu
1184
asked 4 hours ago
Saptarshi Basu
1184
1184
New contributor
Saptarshi Basu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Saptarshi Basu is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Saptarshi Basu 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
4
down vote
accepted
I read SHA1 is still a secured hashing function with no collision found as of now.
You read an old text, this is not the case anymore since SHA-1 was SHAttered.
In Java, we still use SHA1PRNG algorithm in
SecureRandomclass for the purpose of generating IV (let's say for CBC).
Is it enough secured as a PRNG generating unpredictable IV for CBC? Or even for a PRNG, SHA256 is recommended?
SHA-1 is still fine for key derivation, HMAC, MGF1 based padding and indeed random generation and many other use cases that do not suffer from collision attacks.
That said, attacks can only get better, never worse, so using a more modern hash is always recommended. When it comes to random number generation the seeding is much more likely to be problematic though, and you should definitely make sure that your systems RNG is running correctly.
And, when it comes to Java's SecureRandom, you may want to consider my answer on StackOverflow and not use (or at least indicate) "SHA1PRNG" at all.
answered 4 hours ago
Maarten Bodewes
49.5k569182
Wrt this answer and your other, why then is SHA-1 SecureRandom still part of JDK 10? My conspiracy organ is aching...
– Paul Uszak
6 mins ago
1
Well, it is still secure. And if they remove it then all of the existing software that uses"SHA1PRNG"breaks. If they were out there to break your code they would not have supplied the more secure alternatives orSecureRandom.getInstanceStrong()I suppose. Heck, you can easily make a HSM or SmartCard provided random the default. Most other languages / libraries are way less flexible. Android used a bad implementation of SHA1PRNG and now simply lies if you try and use it, as everybody still hardcodes"SHA1PRNG"for some reason or other.
– Maarten Bodewes
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
I read SHA1 is still a secured hashing function with no collision found as of now.
You read an old text, this is not the case anymore since SHA-1 was SHAttered.
In Java, we still use SHA1PRNG algorithm in
SecureRandomclass for the purpose of generating IV (let's say for CBC).
Is it enough secured as a PRNG generating unpredictable IV for CBC? Or even for a PRNG, SHA256 is recommended?
SHA-1 is still fine for key derivation, HMAC, MGF1 based padding and indeed random generation and many other use cases that do not suffer from collision attacks.
That said, attacks can only get better, never worse, so using a more modern hash is always recommended. When it comes to random number generation the seeding is much more likely to be problematic though, and you should definitely make sure that your systems RNG is running correctly.
And, when it comes to Java's SecureRandom, you may want to consider my answer on StackOverflow and not use (or at least indicate) "SHA1PRNG" at all.
answered 4 hours ago
Maarten Bodewes
49.5k569182
Wrt this answer and your other, why then is SHA-1 SecureRandom still part of JDK 10? My conspiracy organ is aching...
– Paul Uszak
6 mins ago
1
Well, it is still secure. And if they remove it then all of the existing software that uses"SHA1PRNG"breaks. If they were out there to break your code they would not have supplied the more secure alternatives orSecureRandom.getInstanceStrong()I suppose. Heck, you can easily make a HSM or SmartCard provided random the default. Most other languages / libraries are way less flexible. Android used a bad implementation of SHA1PRNG and now simply lies if you try and use it, as everybody still hardcodes"SHA1PRNG"for some reason or other.
– Maarten Bodewes
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
I read SHA1 is still a secured hashing function with no collision found as of now.
You read an old text, this is not the case anymore since SHA-1 was SHAttered.
In Java, we still use SHA1PRNG algorithm in
SecureRandomclass for the purpose of generating IV (let's say for CBC).
Is it enough secured as a PRNG generating unpredictable IV for CBC? Or even for a PRNG, SHA256 is recommended?
SHA-1 is still fine for key derivation, HMAC, MGF1 based padding and indeed random generation and many other use cases that do not suffer from collision attacks.
That said, attacks can only get better, never worse, so using a more modern hash is always recommended. When it comes to random number generation the seeding is much more likely to be problematic though, and you should definitely make sure that your systems RNG is running correctly.
And, when it comes to Java's SecureRandom, you may want to consider my answer on StackOverflow and not use (or at least indicate) "SHA1PRNG" at all.
answered 4 hours ago
Maarten Bodewes
49.5k569182
Wrt this answer and your other, why then is SHA-1 SecureRandom still part of JDK 10? My conspiracy organ is aching...
– Paul Uszak
6 mins ago
1
Well, it is still secure. And if they remove it then all of the existing software that uses"SHA1PRNG"breaks. If they were out there to break your code they would not have supplied the more secure alternatives orSecureRandom.getInstanceStrong()I suppose. Heck, you can easily make a HSM or SmartCard provided random the default. Most other languages / libraries are way less flexible. Android used a bad implementation of SHA1PRNG and now simply lies if you try and use it, as everybody still hardcodes"SHA1PRNG"for some reason or other.
– Maarten Bodewes
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
I read SHA1 is still a secured hashing function with no collision found as of now.
You read an old text, this is not the case anymore since SHA-1 was SHAttered.
In Java, we still use SHA1PRNG algorithm in
SecureRandomclass for the purpose of generating IV (let's say for CBC).
Is it enough secured as a PRNG generating unpredictable IV for CBC? Or even for a PRNG, SHA256 is recommended?
SHA-1 is still fine for key derivation, HMAC, MGF1 based padding and indeed random generation and many other use cases that do not suffer from collision attacks.
That said, attacks can only get better, never worse, so using a more modern hash is always recommended. When it comes to random number generation the seeding is much more likely to be problematic though, and you should definitely make sure that your systems RNG is running correctly.
And, when it comes to Java's SecureRandom, you may want to consider my answer on StackOverflow and not use (or at least indicate) "SHA1PRNG" at all.
answered 4 hours ago
Maarten Bodewes
49.5k569182
I read SHA1 is still a secured hashing function with no collision found as of now.
You read an old text, this is not the case anymore since SHA-1 was SHAttered.
In Java, we still use SHA1PRNG algorithm in
SecureRandomclass for the purpose of generating IV (let's say for CBC).
Is it enough secured as a PRNG generating unpredictable IV for CBC? Or even for a PRNG, SHA256 is recommended?
SHA-1 is still fine for key derivation, HMAC, MGF1 based padding and indeed random generation and many other use cases that do not suffer from collision attacks.
That said, attacks can only get better, never worse, so using a more modern hash is always recommended. When it comes to random number generation the seeding is much more likely to be problematic though, and you should definitely make sure that your systems RNG is running correctly.
And, when it comes to Java's SecureRandom, you may want to consider my answer on StackOverflow and not use (or at least indicate) "SHA1PRNG" at all.
answered 4 hours ago
Maarten Bodewes
49.5k569182
answered 4 hours ago
Maarten Bodewes
49.5k569182
answered 4 hours ago
Maarten Bodewes
49.5k569182
answered 4 hours ago
Maarten Bodewes
49.5k569182
49.5k569182
Wrt this answer and your other, why then is SHA-1 SecureRandom still part of JDK 10? My conspiracy organ is aching...
– Paul Uszak
6 mins ago
1
Well, it is still secure. And if they remove it then all of the existing software that uses"SHA1PRNG"breaks. If they were out there to break your code they would not have supplied the more secure alternatives orSecureRandom.getInstanceStrong()I suppose. Heck, you can easily make a HSM or SmartCard provided random the default. Most other languages / libraries are way less flexible. Android used a bad implementation of SHA1PRNG and now simply lies if you try and use it, as everybody still hardcodes"SHA1PRNG"for some reason or other.
– Maarten Bodewes
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Wrt this answer and your other, why then is SHA-1 SecureRandom still part of JDK 10? My conspiracy organ is aching...
– Paul Uszak
6 mins ago
1
Well, it is still secure. And if they remove it then all of the existing software that uses"SHA1PRNG"breaks. If they were out there to break your code they would not have supplied the more secure alternatives orSecureRandom.getInstanceStrong()I suppose. Heck, you can easily make a HSM or SmartCard provided random the default. Most other languages / libraries are way less flexible. Android used a bad implementation of SHA1PRNG and now simply lies if you try and use it, as everybody still hardcodes"SHA1PRNG"for some reason or other.
– Maarten Bodewes
3 mins ago
Wrt this answer and your other, why then is SHA-1 SecureRandom still part of JDK 10? My conspiracy organ is aching...
– Paul Uszak
6 mins ago
Wrt this answer and your other, why then is SHA-1 SecureRandom still part of JDK 10? My conspiracy organ is aching...
– Paul Uszak
6 mins ago
1
1
Well, it is still secure. And if they remove it then all of the existing software that uses
"SHA1PRNG" breaks. If they were out there to break your code they would not have supplied the more secure alternatives or SecureRandom.getInstanceStrong() I suppose. Heck, you can easily make a HSM or SmartCard provided random the default. Most other languages / libraries are way less flexible. Android used a bad implementation of SHA1PRNG and now simply lies if you try and use it, as everybody still hardcodes "SHA1PRNG" for some reason or other.– Maarten Bodewes
3 mins ago
Well, it is still secure. And if they remove it then all of the existing software that uses
"SHA1PRNG" breaks. If they were out there to break your code they would not have supplied the more secure alternatives or SecureRandom.getInstanceStrong() I suppose. Heck, you can easily make a HSM or SmartCard provided random the default. Most other languages / libraries are way less flexible. Android used a bad implementation of SHA1PRNG and now simply lies if you try and use it, as everybody still hardcodes "SHA1PRNG" for some reason or other.– Maarten Bodewes
3 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Saptarshi Basu is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Saptarshi Basu is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Saptarshi Basu is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Saptarshi Basu 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%2f63198%2fis-sha1-secured-enough-as-a-prng%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
