On 03/09/2012 05:25 AM, Florian Weingarten wrote:
Hello list,

first, excuse me if my questions are obvious (or irrelevant).

I am interested in these questions too.

This is what I pick up from following the SHA-3 list. Someone else please jump in if I'm off the mark.

I am interested in the following questions. Let h be a cryptographic
hash function (let's say SHA1, SHA256, MD5, ...).

1) Is h known to be surjective (or known to not be surjective)? (i.e.,
is the set h^{-1}(x) non-empty for every x in the codomain of h?)

Assuming the domain of x is all messages that are well-defined as input (typically all bit strings less than 2^64 bits in length).

It is not known, but it is expected to be statistically very likely since h is expected to be a good approximation of a random function mapping from >2^(2^64) possible messages down to 2^256 possible hash values.

2) Is it known if every (valid) digest has always more than one
preimage? To state it otherwise: Does a collision exist for every
message? (i.e., is the set h^{-1}(x) larger than 1 for every x in the
image of h?).

Again, my impression is that it is believed statistically certain but not proven.

3) Are there any cryptographic protocols or other applications where the
answers to 1) or 2) are actually relevant?

I suspect that any proof of (1) or (2) could translate into a weakness of the hash function. For (1) hash values should be unrelated (collision resistance) and the codomain is supposed to be too large to enumerate (brute force resistance). In (2) given only a hash value we're not supposed to be able to learn anything definite about the preimages it may or may not have (one wayness).

So perhaps the inability provide more than statistical guarantees is a necessary part of basic hash function security.

Also, a lot of interesting things happen with current hash functions if you restrict the domain of input messages, even in ways that are likely to occur in practice (such as to only very short messages, or messages with many blocks of fixed text at the end).

- Marsh
_______________________________________________
cryptography mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography

Reply via email to