3
$\begingroup$

Narrow pipe hash function designs have recently come under fire, particularly in reference to some SHA-3 candidates. Is this criticism valid? Can it be explained more simply than this paper does?

  • 0
    Not that it's ready yet, but for future reference: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/15811/cryptography2011-05-22
  • 1
    @Qiaochu Yuan: This fragmentation really distresses me. I answer a lot of questions on StackOverflow, and this fragmentation is making it a huge pain for me to figure out where to get a question answered. And half the time, StackOverflow is a better place to ask it anyway. *sigh*2011-05-22
  • 0
    @Omnifarious: I mention this mostly because of your use of the word "criticism." Not being an expert in this field I don't know whether that indicates a mathematical question or a matter of opinion.2011-05-22
  • 1
    @Qiaochu: It is an appropriate question. He is asking whether a certain flaw in a specific class of hash functions causes them to have sufficient vulnerability to be classified as broken.2011-05-22
  • 0
    @Brandon: thank you. I am mildly worried that nobody on math.SE has the expertise to answer this question, but we'll see what happens.2011-05-22
  • 0
    @Omnifarious: in light of the answer below and my comments to it, could you clarify what **mathematical** question you are asking here? The point is that in cryptographic papers the mathematics is usually valid as far as it goes. What matters is the practicality of the assumptions made and even how the community feels about them. But it seems clear to me that such criticisms -- while extremely important -- are outside the scope of this site (and thus it is a good thing that a cryptography site is on the horizon).2011-05-23
  • 0
    @Pete L. Clark: I think the mathematical question I'm asking here is clear. I will answer my own question in a way that I hope makes it clear how it is a mathematical question.2011-05-23

2 Answers 2