This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
How it works
editI find the short description that Bernstien gives on his own website to be very concise in contrast to what is on the wiki right now. Perhaps we need some clean-up. Why do we have so many example hashes? Lets keep it simple. Teque5 (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Cryptanalysis required
editNeeds to be some discussion on this, as in all ciphers. No point discussing security without discussing cryptanalysis.
Someone set off a spark!
editSHA-256: e3b0c44298fc1c149afbf4c8996fb92427ae41e4649b934ca495991b7852b855
CubeHash 8/1-512: 90bc3f2948f7374065a811f1e47a208a53b1a2f3be1c0072759ed49c9c6c7f28\f26eb30d5b0658c563077d599da23f97df0c2c0ac6cce734ffe87b2e76ff7294
e3b0c44298fc1c149afbf4c8996fb92427ae41e4649b934ca495991b7852b855 90bc3f2948f7374065a811f1e47a208a53b1a2f3be1c0072759ed49c9c6c7f28\f26eb30d5b0658c563077d599da23f97df0c2c0ac6cce734ffe87b2e76ff7294
There's no WAY that's going to be easy to find out how to decode.
Ooh, and what's a backslash doing in there?
I am no wiz, but this has probably set off a spark. Seems long and secure, but the procedure chart isn't as complex as the SHA-256 one is.
This article is years out of date.
editIn 2009, M. Bernstein identified two additional parameters to the function to NIST. This article talks about CubeHashr/b-h, but since September 2009 the function has actually been parameterized as CubeHashi+r/b+f-h — five parameters not three. M. Bernstein's 2010 submission to NIST proposed (amongst others) CubeHash16+16/1+32-512 as SHA-3 "AHS512x" and CubeHash16+16/32+32–128 as SHA-3 "AMAC128". This article gives hash values produced by "CubeHash 16/32-512" and so forth. That is in fact CubeHash160+16/32+160-512 in the 2009 notation, and the hashes in this article are not what will be obtained from using M. Bernstein's actual final SHA-3 candidates. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
huge-a.. image
editdo we really need that huge image on the right? i propose getting rid of it, because it illustrates an aspect of the hash that is easy to understand anyway. it just takes up space. who will get offended if i just delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.89.22 (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- no reaction, deleting176.63.52.22 (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)