Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | pbarreto's commentslogin

Also, this setting does not address the security of MAC constructions based on SHA-3.

For instance, HMAC over SHA-2-256 or SHA-2-512/256 with a 256-bit key is expected to attain 256-bit security (i.e. the MAC size equals the security level).

Yet SHA-3-256 would not reach anything above 128-bit security, even though the MAC is 256 bits long; to attain 256-bit security one would have to scale the MAC size up to 512 bits instead.


I think you would be safe using SHA-3-512 and truncating to 256 bits but that is a rather ridiculous way to set up a cryptographic primitive.


Well, not so much now that SHA-3 is length-extension resistant, eschewing the need for HMAC. A standard MAC mode has to be defined anyway, and truncating the output might as well be part of it.


[deleted]


And since we're at this, perhaps you meant c _between_ 448 and 1024, according to the sec level?


Yeah, Keccak-224 specified c=448. I was trying to simplify things by sticking to Keccak at 256 and 512 bit fixed output lengths, which specified c=512 and c=1024 respectively.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: