Talk:Collision attack

Ctation needed?
"When a collision attack is discovered and is found to be faster than a birthday attack, a hash function is often denounced as "broken"." Says who? 93.228.115.74 (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * E kaj ima ? 2A05:4F44:107:CC00:9171:84DA:3D6F:7F9B (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Error
Mathematically stated, given a prefix p, the attack finds two different appendages m1 and m2 such that hash(p || m1) = hash(p || m2) (where || is the concatenation operation).

I think this should be

Mathematically stated, given a prefix p, the attack finds two different appendages m1 and m2 such that hash(p1 || m1) = hash(p2 || m2) (where || is the concatenation operation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.50.93 (talk)


 * Oh shit, you're right! How could I make such a blatant error... Thanks for reporting! -- intgr [talk] 12:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Flame used the variant of collision prefix attack where H(p || m1) = H(p || m2). The authors of flame were only able to change a few fields in Microsoft supplied extensions - prologue and epilogue were not changed. You pretty much got it right two years before we saw a working exploit. Jeffrey Walton 19:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Attack Scenario is Incorrect
Under attack scenario, it is stated "For example, password hashing and HMACs are not vulnerable [to collisions]." Intuitively, colliding passwords does seem relevant: H(p1) = H(p2) when p1 != p2 is definetly a problem (perhaps p1, p2 have a common prefix or suffix). In addition, when following the citation (provided by the Wayback machine), the Crytpography Research FAQ does not state passwords are not vulnerable. Jeffrey Walton 19:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. Preimage attacks are relevant to password hashing. A preimage attack is not the same as a collision attack. E.g. NIST still approves SHA-1 for HMACs and PBKDF, but no longer recommends them for digital signatures. 178.195.225.28 (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed with 178.195.225.28
 * > H(p1) = H(p2) when p1 != p2 is definetly a problem
 * This equation doesn't explain the whole situation. Under a collision attack, both p1 and p2 must be (partially) chosen by the attacker. And the attacker has no control over what the output hash is -- it's chosen arbitrarily in the collision attack process. Think about it -- if the attacker already knows the password (plaintext), or can specify it themself, then the password authentication system is already broken.
 * In a real password hashing attack scenario, the attacker only has hash h and needs to find a plaintext where h=H(p). By definition, a collision attack is not applicable, since it won't help the attacker to find a colliding h, it will only find a pair of colliding p1 and p2.
 * If the attacker is able to find a plaintext colliding with the known h, then it's already a preimage attack. -- intgr [talk] 13:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

"Near-collision" attacks?
The SHA-1 page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-1) mentions a "near-collision attack"; what is that and can it be added to this page? A quick Google search found lots of mentions of them but no definitions that I saw. Bobbozzo (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

confusing attack scenario
The scenario depicted under Digital Signatures did not make sense before the November 7 edit (with three people) and makes even less sense now (with just Alice and Bob). Step 4 says "she sends document B to Bob", but she (Alice) does not have document B at that point. Can somebody clean this up? IOLJeff (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the non-constructive edits. I also clarified it by changing "She" in the 4th step to "Mallory". Does it make sense now? -- intgr [talk] 09:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Intgr. That is better. I also tried to clarify further. IOLJeff (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Collision attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100327141611/http://th.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/people/lucks/HashCollisions/ to http://th.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/People/lucks/HashCollisions/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

advance hashing
hassing is an improvement of collision