Talk:CubeHash
Add topic | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
How it works
[edit]I 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
[edit]Needs to be some discussion on this, as in all ciphers. No point discussing security without discussing cryptanalysis.
Someone set off a spark!
[edit]SHA-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This article is years out of date.
[edit]In 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
[edit]do 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)